HINTS 



ON THE 



INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY. 



BY 

M* STUART 

PROFESSOR IN ANDOVER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 



SeconTr JEtrttfon, 

WITH ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 



ANDOVER: 

ALLEN, MORRILL & WARDWELL. 

new york: dayton and newman. — Philadelphia: perkins 
and purves. — boston : crocker and brewster. 

] 842. 




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1842, by 

MOSES STUART, 
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 



ANDOVER : 
Allen, Morrill & Wardwell, Printers. 



PREFACE, 



No apology is necessary for engaging in the investigation 
of the subjects, which are briefly treated of in the following 
sheets. These matters are of deep interest to every inqui- 
ring Christian ; and the character of the Scriptures, in the 
view of the world, is in no small degree concerned with 
them. Unbelievers reproach us with giving credit to a book 
which is full of enigmas, and allege that every one interprets 
it according to his own fancy, and so as to support his own 
particular opinions. Nor is this all. They even charge 
ambiguity upon the Scriptures themselves ; and they are ap- 
parently moved to do this, by the ever varying, discrepant, 
and sometimes even opposite conclusions of expositors. No 
book, they say, which is plainly and honestly written, could 
possibly afford room for such diversity of opinion. 

Particularly have such charges been made against the 
prophecies. These have been compared to the ambiguous 
vaticinations of the heathen oracles, and pronounced to be 
deserving of merely the same credit which is given to them 
by enlightened minds, 

One might reply to all this by saying, that the abuse of a 
thing is no good argument against the right and proper use 
of it ; that the mistakes of expositors are not chargeable up- 
on the original writers, unless those mistakes are unavoida- 
bly connected with the expressions of those writers ; and 
finally, that when men, ill-informed or ignorant of the true 
nature of scriptural language, misinterpret or pervert it, it can 



4 



PREFACE. 



be no good ground of objection to the sacred books as they 
are in themselves. 

If, in addition to such a reply, it can be shown that the pro- 
phecies, against which the charges in question are specially 
directed, are susceptible of a plain, fair, and natural interpre- 
tation, and that historical facts accord with such an interpre- 
tation, the stumbling block that is cast in our way would 
seem to be removed. 

An attempt to do this, in regard to some of the more im- 
portant prophetic passages, which have of late years been 
the subject of frequent and animated discussion, is made in 
the following pages. To write a large volume on such topics 
would be comparatively easy ; to select, combine, and exhibit 
matter appropriate to a small one, is a more difficult task. 

If the path in which I travel should be thought by some to 
be new, I hope this will not prevent any reader from giving it 
a leisurely and thorough examination, before he abandons it. 
If some of the results, in this little treatise, should appear new 
to the reader, I must suggest to him, that they are not the 
consequence of seeking after novelties, but simply of follow- 
ing out the plain and obvious principles of interpretation. 
If he does not mid it to be so after examination, let him con- 
demn the book. 

If there be any Bible for us, it is one which consists of hu- 
man language, interpreted in a manner consonant with the 
laws of language. My principal object is, to protest against 
the substitution of fancy and conjecture in the interpretation 
of the Scriptures, in the place of established principle and 
rule. With a sincere love for all that is new, whenever it is 
better then the old, I am still, throughout this book, a thor- 
ough Conservative in respect to the fixed and immutable prin- 
ciples of reasonable hermeneutics. I hope for a hearing — 
I will not despair even of approbation — by those who love 
this species of Conservatism. At all events, if it must be that 



PREFACE. 



5 



any will be disposed to turn away from the subject with only 
a slight examination of it, and thus decline to give me a fair 
opportunity to gain their assent, I would at least say : ndxotl-ov 
ftiv, Sxovaov Ml 

It is time for the churches, in reference to the matters 
now before us, to seek some refuge from the tumultuous 
ocean on which they have of late been tossed. To those 
who long for a quiet harbor, a chart, which offers even any 
tolerable grounds of hope that the course toward such a ha- 
ven is marked out, will not be unwelcome. 

I make no promises. I have satisfied myself as to the 
course which ought to be pursued ; and in this state of mind 
it is natural to cherish a hope, that a process of thinking and 
reasoning, similar to that through which I have passed, may 
satisfy others. With this hope I give my little book to the 
public. 

Some of the views, which are exhibited in the following 
pages, may be found in the early volumes of the Biblical Re- 
pository, ranged under different titles. But they are here 
repeated with many modifications and additions. My present 
apprehension is, that continued and often repeated study and 
reflection have corrected those views, in some respects; if 
not, they have at least served to expand them. There is, 
moreover, some important advantage in having them brought 
together, and exhibited so that a comparison of them may be 
easily made. 

The introduction of a few Hebrew and Greek words was 
unavoidable, in the execution of my plan. For the most 
part these are so managed, as to occasion no serious embar- 
rassment to the well-informed English reader. 



Thus far the preface to the first edition of this work. A 
second being now demanded, I take occasion to say, that I 
I* 



6 



PREFACE. 



have carefully revised the whole ; made a number of correc- 
tions which sometimes qualify, and at other times set aside, 
the diction originally employed ; and in a variety of cases, I 
have made additions, some of which at least will not, as 1 
trust, be deemed unimportant. The criticisms of friends, 
and the objections of opponents, have as yet reached me only 
in a very few cases. Most of the additions, therefore, are 
only such as were prompted by my own mind, after revising 
the whole work. 

It would be easy to swell the volume to a considerable 
size, and still leave many things unsaid, which might be ap- 
propriately said. But a large book would defeat some of the 
purposes that I have in view, and anticipate other things 
which I hope ere long to publish in a different way. 



M. STUART. 



Tlteol. Seminary, Jlndover, 
Sept. 10, 1842. 



HINTS 



RESPECTING THE 

INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY. 



§ 1. Introduction. 

The history of scriptural interpretation presents few, if 
any, phenomena more peculiar than those which have been 
exhibited, by some of the modes in which parts of the books 
of Daniel and of the Revelation have been explained, by a 
large class of English and American expositors. It would 
be a difficult task to enumerate all the writers of the class 
in question, who have made their appearance before the 
public ; and still more difficult, to make out even a sketch 
of all their peculiar and in some respects ever varying inter- 
pretations. It is no part of my present design to attempt 
this. As a polemic, or an antagonist of particular writers, 
it is not my wish or intention to appear. Nor is it at all 
within my purpose to write a book on the general subject 
of expounding prophecy. My design is, to keep strictly 
within the bounds designated by the title of this Essay ; 
and therefore I shall attempt no more than to give some 
hints, addressed to the consideration of the Christian pub- 
lic, in respect to some two or three of the principles gene- 



8 



INTRODUCTION. 



rally adopted by- the expositors already named, in their in- 
terpretation of Daniel and of the Apocalypse. 

The subjects of discussion to which I have adverted, 
may be comprised under three distinct heads. The first 
is the proposition, that there is in many parts of the pro- 
phecies, an occult, mystical, undeveloped meaning, which 
renders those predictions occasionally pregnant with a dou- 
ble sense. The second, that some other prophecies have 
a meaning which is so concealed and obscure, that it can 
never be discovered until the events take place to which 
they refer. The third is, that the leading designations of 
time in the book of Daniel and the Apocalypse, viz. " a 
time, times, and half a time," and " forty and two months 
or twelve hundred and sixty days," comprise, not the actual 
period literally named, but 1260 years. In other words, 
the general principle, in respect to this third head, is, that 
the times, named in the two books before us, are designed 
to be understood as meaning, that each day is the repre- 
sentative of a year. 

For a long time these principles have been so current 
among the expositors of the English and American world, 
that scarcely a serious attempt to vindicate them has of 
late been made. They have been regarded as so plain, 
and so well fortified against all objections, that most exposi- 
tors have deemed it quite useless even to attempt to defend 
them. One might indeed almost compare the ready and 
unwavering assumption of these propositions, to the as- 
sumption of the first self-evident axioms in the science of 
geometry, which not only may dispense with any process 
of ratiocination in their defence, but which do not even 
admit of any. 

If I have overstated the confidence that has been felt 
and exhibited as to the principles in question, it is not from 
design. I have stated merely the impression that has been 



INTRODUCTION. 



9 



made on my own mind, by the perusal of many expositors 
of prophecy ; and I would merely make the appeal to every 
intelligent reader, whether my representation is not sub- 
stantially correct. 

Is it lawful and safe, now, to call in question a mode of 
interpretation so generally admitted, and which has so long 
been current among us ? Lawful, I think, it may be ; for 
the Scriptures have prescribed to us none of the rules 
which lead to such interpretations as those to be examined, 
nor have any of the Creeds of Protestants dictated any 
thing which binds us to admit them. Safe it may be, pro- 
vided truth admits of our questioning such rules ; and 
surely it must be safe, if truth demands that we should re- 
ject them, for it is always safe and proper to follow truth. 

The true and legitimate principles of interpretation de- 
pend on no individual man, no sect, no party. They are 
independent of all parties, else they would be of little or no 
value. They depend on no niceties of philosophical theo- 
ries, on no far fetched and recondite deductions, on no ca- 
price of fancy or imagination. Were they so dependent, 
they would be of little value even to the learned, and of 
none at all to the great mass of men who read the Scrip- 
tures. 

The origin and basis of all true hermeneutical science 
is the reason and common sense of men, at all times and 
in all ages, applied to the interpretation of language either 
spoken or written. The faculty of interpreting is as natu- 
ral as the faculty of speaking ; and the rules or principles 
of interpretation are formed merely by observing how the 
faculty of exegesis develops itself. AW science of interpre- 
tation so called, all modes of expounding language pro- 
posed by whomsoever they may have been, (unless indeed 
they may truly be the result of inspiration), which are not 
founded on the simple basis described above, can put in no 



10 



INTRODUCTION. 



just claim to our confidence, and have no right to exact 
our homage. 

A scientific digest of the principles of interpretation, if 
rightly prepared, would be made in the like way as a gram- 
matical treatise. In the latter case, the usages of language 
as to the forms of nouns, verbs, pronouns, etc, are first ob- 
served ; then the manner in which sentences are construc- 
ted. A simple and true account of these constitutes what 
we call the Grammar of any language. So is it, also, in 
respect to Hermeneutics or the science of interpretation. 
The general usage of intelligent men, in respect to inter- 
preting the language which they hear or read, is first ob- 
served, and then a record of this is made and reduced to a 
scientific form. The result is, a book of Hermeneutics. 

Nothing can be more certain, than that language was 
not constructed by the aid of grammar as a science ; for 
this science is only a regular digest of facts observed in re- 
spect to language already spoken, with some obvious de- 
ductions of general principles from these. These princi- 
ples the rational nature of man, when employed in speak- 
ing or writing, instinctively follows. They are not mat- 
ters of calculation and of consciously designed effort. So 
also in Hermeneutics ; the principles of interpreting what 
we hear or read are instinctive, they belong to our ration- 
al nature. Science only collects and arranges them, and 
then draws deductions from them. 

If this account be correct as to the origin of the science 
of interpretation, it would seem to follow, that any princi- 
ple inconsistent with the general laws which our nature 
and reason have prescribed, or any principle beyond the 
circle of that prescription, cannot be safely trusted. Should 
any one ask : Why do the proper principles of Hermeneu- 
tics address themselves to all intelligent men with an im- 
perative force ? The answer is, that they are imperative, 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



11 



because they are the laws of our communicative nature 
and faculties — because we find the basis of them within 
ourselves, and are conscious therefore of their binding force. 
But suppose that we are called upon to give our assent to 
a rule of interpretation which is not founded in the usages 
of men, nay which is even contrary to these or inconsistent 
with them, are we obliged to yield assent ? Just as much, 
I answer, as we should be to yield our assent to a proposi- 
tion in grammar, which would convert into a rule of the 
English language the patois of some little district or village. 
For example ; not far from the place where I am writing, 
is a small collection of people, who have, no one knows 
how long, been accustomed to say : I does ; I reads this ; 
I goes to-morroiv, etc. Shall this be inserted, now, as an 
additional rule for the declension and use of verbs in the 
next edition of Murray's English Grammar 1 If you an- 
swer in the negative, then why should a rule of interpreta- 
tion foreign to general usage, or inconsistent with it, be 
incorporated into a system of Hermeneutics 1 



§ % Occult or double sense of prophecy. 

The bearing of what has been said, the reader will 
speedily perceive. Our first question, as above proposed, 
is, whether we are to regard the position, that " there are 
many occult passages in the prophecies, which are preg- 
nant with a double meaning," as a position founded in the 
common-sense principles and usages of mankind as to the 
interpretation of language ? 

On this question I shall now proceed to make a few re- 
marks ; keeping in view, however, the title of this Essay, 
and remembering that I am pledged only to give Hints, 
and not to write a Thesaurus of hermeneutical science. 



12 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



I must first of all define the meaning of double sense, so 
that the subject of discussion may be distinctly understood. 

If we ascribe to any passage of Scripture a literal, ob- 
vious, historical sense, and interpret it as conveying the 
meaning which its words naturally and obviously seem to 
convey, and yet at the same time ascribe to these same 
words another meaning which is occult or obscure, but still 
is designed to be conveyed by those same words, we then 
make out a double sense. For example ; if the second Psalm 
is construed as a description of the coronation of David or 
Solomon on the hill of Zion, and all that is there said be 
literally and historically applied, and still we go on to find 
in this same Psalm, that is, in the words of it, a secondary 
or spiritual sense (as it is often named), then we give to 
it a double sense. We first ascribe to it an obvious and 
historical meaning, endeavoring to make this out in the 
best manner that we can ; and then we suppose that there 
is a vTiovoia, i. e. an occult or secondary and spiritual mean- 
ing, by virtue of which the Psalm becomes applicable to 
Christ , the true and spiritual Messiah. So, to produce 
another example, if we interpret the 45th Psalm as an 
epithalamium or nuptial song, on the occasion of Solomon's 
marriage with a foreign princess, and endeavor to adapt 
every thing in it to the historical sense consequent upon 
such a method of exegesis, and yet after we have executed 
this task, we proceed to show, or at least endeavor to show, 
that a vnovoia runs through the whole, by virtue of which 
we may find in the words a description of the King Mes- 
siah and of his union with the Church, then we give to 
this Psalm a double sense. 

The question now before us is : Whether this is a rea- 
sonable, practicable, well-grounded method of interpreting 
the Scriptures ? 

I shall not stop here to argue with those, who, finding 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 13 

difficulty in such a direct and palpably occult sense through- 
out the whole of those two Psalms, expound one part of 
the second Psalm, for example, as historically descriptive 
of the literal David, and the other part as belonging to the 
King Messiah, because it seems incapable of a literal ap- 
plication to David, except by doing violence to the mean- 
ing of the words. In like manner do they expound many 
other portions of the Old Testament Scriptures. I do not 
stop to argue with such expositors, because the violence 
which is done to sound rules of interpretation, by arbitra- 
rily introducing two subjects of the writer's discourse, 
when he plainly and obviously presents but one, is so great, 
that but little danger to the churches can ever arise from 
such an error. It is so plainly a trespass against the laws 
of our nature as to the interpretation of language ; it is so 
arbitrary in its proceedings, when it appropriates one part 
of the text to one subject, and another part, which is indis- 
solubly connected, to another and totally different subject ; 
that nothing like a general persuasion of propriety in prac- 
tising such a method of interpretation can ever be brought 
about. There are indeed those who so interpret many 
passages of the Old Testament ; there have been such in 
days that are past ; but, as I have already said, it is doing 
such violence against the first principles of our reason as 
to the interpretation of language, that little or no serious 
evil can well be supposed to flow from it. The imagina- 
tion of some readers may be excited and pleased by the in- 
genuity of such devices, but the sober understanding and 
judgment of none can be satisfied. That must always be 
a wavering and uncertain state of mind, which follows the 
adoption of such views ; and the faith, which is connected 
with them, must be feeble, tottering, doubtful, and mostly 
inoperative. Nature abused and driven away will sooner 
or later return and claim and vindicate her rights. The 
2 



14 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY* 



common sense of men must ultimately prevail over whim 
and caprice. 

It is the other method of interpretation, namely, that 
which makes a primary and secondary meaning throughout 
such passages of Scripture as are supposed to relate to the 
new dispensation, that has been the usual and prevalent 
one among those who defend the vnbvoia or occult sense. 
This then, at least, must be briefly examined. 

The first and great difficulty with this scheme of interpre- 
tation is, that it forsakes and sets aside the common laws of 
language. The Bible excepted, in no book, treatise, epis- 
tle, discourse, or conversation, ever written, published, or 
addressed by any one man to his fellow beings, (unless in 
the way of sport, or with an intention to deceive), can a 
double sense be found. There are, indeed, charades, enig- 
mas, phrases with a double entendre, and the like, perhaps, 
in all languages ; there have been abundance of heathen 
oracles which were susceptible of tico interpretations ; but 
among even all these, there never has been, and there 
never was a design that there should be, but one sense or 
meaning in reality. Ambiguity of language may be, and 
has been, designedly resorted to in order to mislead the 
reader or hearer, or in order to conceal the ignorance of 
soothsayers, or to provide for their credit amid future exi- 
gencies ; but this is quite foreign to the matter of a seri- 
ous and bona fide double meaning of words. It bears no 
comparison with the alleged vnovoia in question. Nor 
can we, for a moment, without violating the dignity and 
sacredness of the Scriptures, suppose that the inspired 
writers are to be compared to the authors of riddles, conun- 
drums, enigmas, and ambiguous heathen oracles. 

How then can we prescribe a rule of interpretation, and 
apply this rule to the Scriptures, when we are constrained 
to acknowledge, that no other book on earth, addressed 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



15 



by intelligent and serious men to the reason and under- 
standing of their fellow beings, can bear interpretation by 
such a rule 1 

I am aware of the usual answer to this question, viz., 
that " the Bible is a divine book, and that, since God is 
the real author of it, we must not expect to place it on the 
common basis of other books." 

But how can we be satisfied with such an answer 1 I 
am indeed fully persuaded, that " all Scripture is given by 
inspiration of God." I believe the Bible to be of divine 
authority ; and that the men who wrote the Scriptures were 
under a divine influence which guarded them against error 
or mistake, when they composed the sacred books. I have 
no hesitation in admitting and defending these positions. 
But I cannot deduce from them any thing in the way of 
defending a double sense. For why should we suppose, 
because the Bible is a divine book, that its manner, style, 
or diction, differs essentially from those of all other books ? 
We may well suppose the matter to transcend the discov- 
eries of unenlightened reason. But why should the man- 
ner of communicating information to us, differ from what 
is usual and common among men ? Nay, we may boldly 
advance further and ask: How could the Bible be what it 
is, viz., a revelation from God, provided its diction and the 
principles of interpreting it are to be regarded as entirely 
diverse from those of all other books ? What can be more 
rational or plain than the proposition, that ivhen God speaks 
to men for their instruction, he speaks by man, and for 
men, and therefore expects to be understood. Did ever a 
considerate father undertake to teach his children, and yet 
employ language the words and exegetical principles of 
which were entirely beyond their cognizance ? And when 
God speaks to his erring children, with an intention to en- 
lighten and instruct them, and to reclaim them from their 



16 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



wandering ways, does he employ words in such a manner, 
that no analogy drawn from human methods of interpreting 
language can enable men to understand what he commu- 
nicates ? 

Independently of the disputed question before us, no 
man on earth would hesitate a moment as to the answer 
which he must give. A revelation must be intelligible, 
or it is no revelation. It must be made in language that 
men have been accustomed to use, or they have no key to 
it. And if it be made in such a language, then it must be 
interpreted by the common rules and usages of language, 
else there is no key again to the meaning. A revelation 
in the peculiar language of angels, (if they can be supposed 
to use a language), would have no meaning, and be of no 
use to men. Who possesses the appropriate dictionary or 
commentary ? Who has studied the grammar and idiom ? 
A revelation (so called) to men, which is clothed in words 
not employed agreeably to the urns loquendi, and not to be 
interpreted by the usual principles of exegesis, is of course 
no revelation at all. It is no more than sounding brass or 
a tinkling cymbal ; for it neither gives any distinct, articu- 
late, intelligible sounds, nor does it represent them to the 
eye. It is in vain, therefore, that we seek for any rules, 
by which such a book can be explained. 

Indeed, the moment we assume that there is in the Scrip- 
tures a substantial departure from the usus loquendi, either 
in the choice of words, the construction of sentences, or 
the modes of interpretation, that moment we decide, that, 
so far as this departure extends, they are no revelation. 
According to such an assumption, moreover, a necessity 
would of course be presented for a new inspiration, in or- 
der to find out and comprehend what the authors of the 
scriptural books meant. But if a new inspiration be needed, 
then of what use or advantage are the Scriptures, or have 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



17 



they ever been, to men ? It would be just as easy to com- 
municate a revelation de novo to men, so often as they 
needed one, as it would be to give them special inspiration 
in order that they might understand what had already been 
communicated. Nothing then could be gained by such a 
Bible as the case before us supposes. 

We must, therefore, either concede that the usual laws 
of language are to be applied to the Bible, or else that it is, 
and can be, no proper revelation to men, unless they are 
also to be inspired in order to understand it. For if we 
suppose words are to be employed, and sentences con- 
structed and interpreted, in a manner entirely new and 
different from all that has hitherto been known or prac- 
tised, then there is no source from which we can derive 
rules to interpret the Bible, unless it be one which is super- 
natural and miraculous. Who then is it, that has a just 
claim to supernatural instruction or illumination ? Among 
all the contending and antagonist parties, some of whom 
have virtually claimed such inspiration, who is in the right, 
and is to be heard and confided in with respect to his 
claim ? 

These views may serve to show, that we must give up 
any pursuit, in this direction, after a terra firma on which 
we can with confidence fix our resting place. Either God 
has spoken more liumano by men to men, or he has not 
spoken what they can with any good assurance pretend to 
understand without miraculous aid. 

A divine book, therefore, must, like all other books, be 
intelligible in order to be useful ; and if intelligible, then 
it must conform to the usus loquendi, both in respect to 
the choice of words and the meaning of them. How then 
can the Scriptures present us every where with examples 
of the i'Tzovoia or double sense, when we find, and expect to 
2* 



18 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



find, such a sense in no other grave book on the face of all 
the earth ? 

To prevent all misunderstanding of what I mean, how- 
ever, it is proper to add here, that I do not by any means 
design to detract from the force of those passages of Scrip- 
ture, which declare that religious experience is necessary to 
a full and spiritual understanding of some portions of the 
Bible. What is true of other books must, in the way of 
analogy, be true of the Bible also. We do not expect any 
one fully to understand Milton's Paradise Lost, who has 
little or nothing of a poetical taste. We can not suppose 
that any one, who is destitute of attachment to mathemati- 
cal and philosophical science, should enter fully into the 
comprehension of a La Place or a Bowditch. Even so with 
the Scriptures which unfold a spiritual and experimental 
religion. Religious experience is necessary to the full and 
adequate understanding of such passages as relate to that 
experience. But all this is far enough from establishing a 
double sense. In truth, all this is only in the way of anal- 
ogy with regard to other books besides the Scriptures. 

If now there were no other obstacle in the way of a dou- 
ble sense, except that it is entirely different from and op- 
posed to all analogy in respect to interpreting language, 
this one consideration would come near to settling the ques- 
tion. Nothing but divine authority for such a mode of in- 
terpretation would make it proper to practise it. 

But secondly, there are other difficulties in abundance ; 
and a few of them must be brought into notice. The very 
name, vnovoia or occult sense, shows that the meaning in 
question is not deducible from or by the laws of language; 
for it is against the usage of all times and nations to em- 
ploy language in such a way. The question then arises, 
of course, in the second place : How is an occult sense to 
be ascertained? 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



19 



Lexicons, grammars, hermeneutics, yea vernacular power 
over a language, are all set aside by the process that we 
are investigating. To what arbiter then shall we repair 1 
Who or what is to decide, so that we may put confidence 
in the decision I 

Is fancy, or imagination, or the spirit of allegorizing, to 
sit on the throne of judgment ? These judges, as I appre- 
hend, are hardly grave and sober and considerate enough 
to be trusted with so weighty and difficult questions. Be- 
sides, inasmuch as the matter now before us is not one 
within the province of common sense, but one sui generis 
and altogether beyond the reach of scientific principles, who 
among the many judges, differing widely from each other 
and often standing opposed to each other, is to be acknow- 
ledged as the Supreme Court ? Candidates for this hon- 
or, I am aware, make their appearance on all sides. AH, 
moreover, possess equal authority, unless some one or 
more can show that he or they are inspired. By what 
rule or principle shall we adjust their conflicting claims ? 
By the degree of learning which they possess, or the 
strength of imagination, or the dexterous power to draw 
vivid fancy-sketches, or the depth of piety 1 None of these 
principles of judging will answer our purpose. It were 
easy to name men to whom some one of these characteris- 
tics belongs in a high degree, who nevertheless have in- 
dulged in most extravagant phantasies as to making out 
the double or second sense of Scripture. Some examples 
of this nature will be produced in the sequel, but at pre- 
sent we are merely concerned with the principle. In the 
usual cases of exegetical error, we have a test to which an 
appeal may be made, and this is, the laws and usages of 
language in general. If men will not conform to these, in 
their criticisms, then one may justly show their unreason- 
ableness, and thus deprive their exegesis of any important 



20 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECV. 



influence. But in the case before us, we have launched 
on an ocean without bottom or shore, and have neither 
chart, compass, or rudder. How we are safely and surely 
to steer our course, no one, so far as my knowledge ex- 
tends, has yet shown us. 

In fact, unless we say that every man's own fancy is his 
rule, in the matter of an occult sense, I wot not where we 
are to find a rule. Is there any resort except to inspira- 
tion ? I can see no other. If then we should resort to in- 
spiration as the guide — whose inspiration, or alleged inspi- 
ration, is to be trusted ? I am aware that there are claim- 
ants, even on this ground. But we are not accustomed to 
give credit to claims of such nature, since apostolic times. 
When interpreters will heal the sick, and raise the dead, 
and cast out devils, we will begin to bow submissively to 
their alleged authority for making out a second or occult 
sense. Until that time has arrived, I would hope that we 
may be permitted to withhold our assent from their deci- 
sions, provided we find them not well supported. 

From its very nature, an occult sense is one which lan- 
guage does not naturally convey. Of course, nothing less 
than the authority and influence which dictated any partic- 
ular passage of Scripture, can with certainty inform us 
what the hidden or secondary sense of it is. 

In the third place, if such a principle of interpreting 
Scripture be admitted, how is it possible to ascertain with- 
in what bounds it shall be confined ? 

By some, every part and parcel of the Old Testament is 
regarded as capable of a double sense ; and consequently, 
whenever it becomes in their view desirable, on any ac- 
count, to resort to such a sense, they hold themselves at 
liberty to do so. Nor have such views always been con- 
fined to minds of the lower order, or to men of little know- 
ledge. Origen, who believed in the eternity of matter, in- 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



21 



terpreted the first chapter of Genesis as having an occult 
moral or spiritual sense throughout. The waters of the 
firmament above, were the good thoughts and desires of 
men ; those in the depths below, the bad ones. The his- 
tory of the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve he regard- 
ed as an allegory, in order to set forth the power of sin. 
Even so the history of Sarah and Hagar. The Mosaic 
ritual was never intended to be taught as a literal and his- 
toric reality, but in all its parts it must be regarded as con- 
veying an occult sense. Of course all other parts of the 
Scripture may be subjected to a similar process; but more 
especially the Canticles. Origen, moreover, has had many 
followers, both in ancient and modern times. Who has 
not heard too of Cocceius, in recent times, who, with 
much more learning than Origen and with equal strength 
of fancy, outdid his illustrious predecessor 1 The piety 
and learning which were united in Cocceius have given 
great authority to his exegesis ; and throughout all Protes- 
tant Christendom, even down to the present hour, there 
are followers of his mode of interpretation to be found, al- 
though with great varieties both in the theory and practice 
of expounding. 

In the Roman Catholic church the practice of spiritual- 
izing, (as the developing of a double sense is called), has 
been even more general and more unlimited than among 
the Protestants. The Jesuit, who discovered that the ac- 
count of the creation of " the sun to rule the day, and of the 
moon and stars to rule the night," in the first chapter of 
Genesis, was intended, mystically and in the way of vnovoia, 
to teach the supremacy of the Pope and the inferiority of 
kings and cardinals, was merely a specimen of what has 
been very common in that church. But who among all the 
Protestant mystical interpreters can refute the Jesuit ? I 
know of no argument that can reach him, when vnovoia in 



22 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



the Scriptures is once fairly and fully conceded. He has as 
good a right to say, that Gen. 1: 16 was designed to con- 
vey an occult sense, as such Protestants have to aver, that 
Ps. ii. xxii. xlv. ex. and other parts of Scripture, have a 
double sense. Who is, or can be, the final arbiter in such 
cases ? 

Once admit that an occult or mystic second sense may 
be given to any passage of Scripture, and you must of 
course concede to every man the liberty of foisting in upon 
the Scriptures such a meaning, whenever and wherever 
he pleases. If he is abundant and excessive in his phan- 
tasies, it would be difficult to say by what court he is to be 
tried ; much more difficult to point out the authority which 
has a right to pass final sentence of condemnation. In a 
cause to be tried, where there is neither statute nor com- 
mon law for a guide, and where every man (as to the matter 
under cognisance) has the right to do what seems good in 
his own sight, a court must be somewhat puzzled in mak- 
ing out a final and authoritative decision. 

You smile when one tells you of the Jesuit, who preached 
seven sermons from the interjection O ! Yet nothing more 
was necessary even to double this number, than a lively 
fancy, and the power of spiritualizing with such vigour 
as to make out a variety of meanings for the said interjec- 
tion. You smile perhaps still more, when one tells you of 
the preacher, who selected Cant. 1: 9 for his text, (in which 
the bride is compared to the horses in Pharaoh's chariot), 
and drew from its occult meaning eighty-two particulars of 
resemblance between the horses and the church, the last 
of which was, that as the steeds of Pharaoh moved with a 
steady pace over both hill and dale, so the church moves 
with the steady gait of perseverance through the wilderness 
which she is traversing. You will say : " This is excessive ; 
this is ridiculous." But who shall prescribe the bounds of 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



23 



fancy, when she is once authorized to move in any direc- 
tion she pleases ? If you should suggest that, at least, im- 
agination must be bound by the principle of producing 
something useful, in such a development of occult mean- 
ings ; one might reply by asking : How can you show that 
the seven sermons of the Jesuit were not all useful ser- 
mons 1 Certainly they may have been so. And as to the 
expatiator upon the points of resemblance between Pha- 
raoh's horses and the church, at most we cannot, on your 
ground, condemn him unheard. If all his points of like- 
ness were as well chosen as the last, he surely might have 
important subjects before him for discussion ; and who can 
aver, that he did not gravely and profitably discuss them ? 

Indeed this plea of converting the Old Testament in par- 
ticular to useful purposes, proffered by Origen and in vogue 
more or less since his time, may be urged on to any ex- 
tent that fancy or imagination may judge best. Who that 
is familiar with the history of interpretation does not know, 
that many a grave interpreter has spent much time and 
pains in analyzing the proper names of Scripture, in order 
to evoke from them some mysterious spirit with a message 
from a terra incognita 1 It is thus, according to the view of 
such expositors, that the Scriptures become edifying ; thus 
that every part of the Old Testament becomes lighted up, as 
it were, with the lamp of gospel truth. On this ground, al- 
so, any man who understands Hebrew as well as Cocceius 
did, (and truly he was no ordinary adept), may make the 
first chapter of the first book of Chronicles as edifying as 
the 19th Psalm, or equally didactic with the Sermon on the 
Mount. In the first verse of the Chronicles, the name 
Adam might suggest, not unnaturally, the whole history of 
the race of man, with all their attributes, powers, develop- 
ments, and destiny. Seth, (i. e. nip from rpip to put, place, 
substitute, etc.), naturally suggests the great Redeemer of 



24 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



men, who was put in our place, or substituted for us, i. e. 
" he was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for 
our iniquities and so the whole doctrine of the vicarious 
sufferings of Christ is suggested to our consideration by 
the name Seth. Enosh (izn3$$ from to be sick) of 
course teaches us the doctrine of man's frail and dying 
state ; and by indirect consequence it reminds us of all the 
duties which are attendant upon such a state and naturally 
connected with it — a text, therefore, of vast meaning, even 
of boundless import. And so we might pass on through 
all the genealogical tables in the first book of the Chroni- 
cles ; which, when thus treated, instead of being mere 
genealogies in which the church has now no very special 
interest, would then become pregnant with a divine and 
transcendental meaning, and be filled, as one might almost 
say, " with the fulness of God." In this way, too, we can 
demonstrate, that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine 
and for instruction in righteousness. Who then can for- 
bid us to engage in such an excellent work as this ? Who 
can bid us to stop, when thus bending all our powers to 
vindicate the divine authority and excellence of the Scrip- 
tures, and to show that no other book on earth can bear 
comparison with them, as to adaptedness for conveying, at 
all times and in every possible manner, both doctrine and 
practical instruction ? Even the least important part of 
them, (if indeed it is lawful to say that any one part is less 
important than another), has more of significance, more 
that is adapted to our edification, than all the other books 
which the world contains. 

If now to all this I should add large professions of most 
sincere and ardent desires to glorify God by such a view 
of the Scriptures, and to convince men how he has indeed 
" magnified his word above all his name;" if I should, at 
the same time, bestow degrading epithets on all those who 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



25 



deny the supernatural fulness of meaning and the second- 
ary and spiritual sense of the Scriptures, and insert in eve- 
ry convenient place an inuendo that they are fast verging 
toward rationalism ; should I not secure an attentive hear- 
ing of many, yea very many, among both laity and clergy 1 
This, or something of much the same tenor, has often 
been done ; it doubtless will be often repeated in future 
time. Nor is the man who does this, at all within the 
grasp of his mystic brethren, who call themselves more 
sober. There is, as we have seen, no court of appeal. 
And the man who outgoes all his competitors in the exten- 
sion of the spiritual or occult sense of the Scriptures, pro- 
vided the meanings which he gives may tend to edification, 
is of course entitled to a precedence in the great and good 
work (as many deem it) of rendering the Bible edifying 
every where and to the highest degree ; and all this, too, in 
such a way as to show that it is a book unlike all other 
books, and has a fulness of doctrine and instruction which 
are worthy of a God, and which God only could impart to 
it. On the ground of double or occult sense, the right of 
such a man to the claim in question cannot be disproved.. 

The advocates for a double sense, or spiritualizing, will 
doubtless reply to all this, that 4 the abuse of a thing is no 
good argument against the use of it.' In most cases this is 
certainly to be conceded. But if a thing is of such a na- 
ture that it is all abuse, and must be so, it is a good argu- 
ment against it. Of such a nature I must believe the prac- 
tice of mystical interpreters to be. John Bunyan was a 
man who did not lack genius or piety. Yet he has given 
to the world a treatise in which he undertakes to show, that 
not only the temple with its solemn ritual and impressive 
service was significant of good things to come, but that the 
parts all and singular of the same were in like manner sig- 
nificant. The vases, the censers, the trays, the snuffers, 
3 



26 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



yea the snuff itself of the lamps — all, all had an important 
spiritual meaning. Will you say, that Bunyan was dream- 
ing a second time here, to much less purpose than his first 
dream which has rendered him immortal 1 If you do, it 
were easy to refer you to Origen, to Jerome even, to Au- 
gustine, to Cocceius, to Jones of Nayland, and to a host of 
other men distinguished for talents and piety, who have 
wandered scarcely less into dreaming regions than Bunyan. 
When we are gravely told, in many a Commentary, that 
in the parable of the good Samaritan, the man that travelled 
from Jerusalem to Jericho through the wilderness, and fell 
among thieves and was robbed and wounded, represents 
Adam and his posterity travelling through the wilderness 
of this world and robbed and wounded by Satan ; that the 
priest and Levite, who passed by without helping him, re- 
present the law which cannot save the sinner and good 
works and ceremonial observances which cannot help him : 
that the good Samaritan is Christ; that the oil and wine 
are the forgiveness and grace of the gospel ; and that the 
gratuitous work of helping the wounded man is a lively 
emblem of the Redeemer's gratuitous work in respect to 
sinners — all this, we are solemnly assured, is edifying, 
it makes the Scriptures profitable for doctrine, and conse- 
quently no valid objection can be made against it. Be it 
so then ; but why stop here 1 Why choose out those parts 
of the parable which may afford room for tracing imagina- 
ry resemblances, and leave the rest as being of no im- 
portant significance 1 What means the setting of the 
wounded man upon the ass ; the bringing him to an inn ; 
the two pence given to the host ; the promise of more on 
the return of the Samaritan ? By what rule or principle 
does the interpreter stop short of these, and leave them out 
of the category of " things profitable for doctrine ?" Is it 
not the useful, the edifying, which makes this mode of 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



27 



spiritualizing lawful ? If so, then we may vindicate those, 
who out of Adam, Seth, Enosh, (1 Chron. L: 1), bring out 
the greatest and most important of all gospel-truths and 
the most important of all the precepts of practical piety. 
In my apprehension, at least, the latter have as good a 
claim to our confidence as the interpreters of the parable 
of the good Samaritan, who have just been described. 

We have heard of a preacher, who selected from Ezra 
1: 9 the clause nine and twenty knives, for a text. How 
he made this profitable for doctrine, we are not told. We 
have read of still more extraordinary spiritualizing. The 
fact to which we refer is briefly this : in Gen. 29: 2 it is 
said, that Jacob " looked, and behold a well in the field." 
The spiritual instruction or rather consolation deducible 
from this, was expressed by the preaching interpreter in 
the following pathetic exclamation : " What a mercy that 
the field was not in the well !" 

But enough of examples. And if I am again told, as I 
doubtless shall be, that these only serve to expose the abuse 
of the inovom ; I must again reply by asking the advocate 
of the principle in question to point me to the tribunal, 
which decides, or has authority to decide, where the limits 
of such a practice must be drawn. 

Once more ; I am not able to satisfy my own mind, why 
merely a double sense should be assigned to various passa- 
ges of Scripture. Why not three, seven, ten, or (with the 
Jewish Rabbies) forty-nine senses? Fancy can make out 
all these, with little or no difficulty. Why not give to the 
Scripture, as Cocceius maintained we should do, all the 
meanings which it is in any way capable of bearing? 

The only pertinent answer that can be made to this is, 
that it is not usual, even where fancy is permitted to play 
a conspicuous part in the interpretation of ambiguous say- 
ings, to make out more than a double sense ; consequently 



28 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



it would be against usage to assign so many meanings to 
the Scripture. But this answer will hardly suffice. It is 
not usual, in respect to any grave and honest discourse, to 
make out more than one meaning to words ; but the advo- 
cates of double sense have brought us into company with 
the interpreters of enigmas, charades, conundrums, and 
heathen oracles of double entendre, and invited us to keep 
pace with them. If we must do so, then why may we not 
at least make out this distinctive claim for the Scriptures, 
viz. that their superiority to every thing of such an equivo- 
cal nature is manifest, by the fact that the language of 
the inspired books is capable of bearing all possible senses, 
be they more or less ? If the divine origin of the Bible 
cannot be proved in this manner, it must be conceded that 
we may at least show, in such a way, that it is a book dif- 
ferent from all others which the world contains. 

Let me add, in the fifth place, that the mode of interpre- 
tation against which I am contending, can never be relied on 
for the establishment of any scriptural doctrine or precept. 

Few, if any, of the advocates of double sense will ven- 
ture to assert, that we can depend on an occult sense to 
establish any position of importance. The most that is 
usually claimed for this method of interpretation is, that it 
pleases the fancy, excites and gratifies the imagination, and 
thus makes the truth more agreeable to many minds. Yet 
the occult meaning, in order to have any degree of confi- 
dence reposed in it, must harmonize with those texts of 
Scripture which are plain and direct. Indeed, the bare 
statement of the whole matter affords evidence enough, 
that we can never pretend to rely on an occult meaning as 
the foundation of an argument, by which any, even the 
least important, position is established. The simple ques- 
tion is, then, whether we shall resort to allegorizing or 
spiritualizing, merely to gratify the fancy, or amuse the 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



29 



imagination, or to allure by ingenuity in drawing supposed 
resemblances. But on this question why should there be 
any doubt? The Bible is a book of import much too 
grave to be treated in this manner. God, and heaven, and 
hell, and never-dying souls, are no originals for fancy pic- 
tures and amusing sketches. It is a degradation of the aw- 
ful majesty of Scripture to treat it in this way. Were I to 
speak what my feelings prompt me to do, I should say, that 
it is a profanation of its holy contents. When romance 
and fiction and conceit and conjecture and enigma are all 
mixed up with instruction of the most serious and impor- 
tant character which can be addressed to human beings, 
what mind, that possesses a refined taste and delicate sen- 
sibility, will not be revolted and displeased with such a 
procedure ? 

I repeat what has been already said : When God speaks 
to men, lie speaks more humano, by men and for men. View- 
ed in this light, the poetry of the Scriptures is poetry with 
all its characteristics ; the prose is prose ; the genealogies 
are what they purport to be ; the historic narrations are 
histories ; the psalms are songs of praise ; the proverbs are 
maxims or apothegms ; the plans of the tabernacle and tem- 
ple, with all their apparatus, are plans for building sanctua- 
ries and furnishing them ; prophecy is prediction ; preach- 
ing is homiletic ; allegory is allegory, and parable is para- 
ble. If there be any thing that is certain, as to the gene- 
ral principles of interpretation respecting the Scriptures^ 
all this is certain. If the Bible is not to be interpreted in 
such a manner, i. e. in accordance with these positions, 
then we must give up all hope of coming to the knowledge 
of any rules by which it can be interpreted. 

It is well that the public taste is at last putting its hand 
more and more upon the extravagance of days that are past, 
in respect to the occult sense of many portions of the Scrips 
3* 



30 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



tures. But in the department of prophecy, with which I 
am particularly concerned at present, there is yet great lati- 
tude given and taken in regard to this matter. In the 
Psalms, and indeed in a multitude of passages in the Pro- 
phets, the Pentateuch, and all parts of the Scripture, there 
are expositors even now who defend the I no rout, i. e. they 
find a literal and historic sense which answered in former 
days a temporary purpose, and also an occult sense, wrap- 
ped up or involved in the drapery of the historic sense, and 
discernible only when this is unrolled and laid aside. They 
are serious in the belief that they have a right to interpret 
in this manner ; and although few will venture to meet a 
discussion of the subject on the ground of simple herme- 
neutics, (for on this ground their cause must surely fail), 
yet they appeal, one and all, to the usage and authority of 
the New Testament writers, and aver, that whatever diffi- 
culties may be made out on the grounds of hermeneutical 
science, as applicable to writings merely of human origin, 
yet it is clear that the Evangelists and other writers of the 
New Testament did admit and adopt a double sense of the 
Hebrew Scriptures, and consequently, we are at liberty to 
do the same. 

This for substance has been so long and so often al- 
leged, in the way of defending the occult sense of the Old 
Testament Scriptures, and it is moreover, apparently, so 
weighty an argument in its favor, that I must of necessity 
take it into serious consideration. 

I might remark at the outset, that were the facts true, 
in the sense in which they are usually alleged, it would not 
follow of course, that we are entitled to assign an occult 
sense to any and every passage of Scripture, where we may 
merely of ourselves think it proper to do so. We take the 
ground that the New Testament writers were inspired; 
und if they were, then it is possible that they might be en- 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



31 



lightened by inspiration so as to give a meaning to some 
parts of the Old Testament Scripture, which is and must 
be occult in itself to all who are uninspired. We may in- 
deed now follow in their steps, in those cases where they 
have given us an occult sense ; we may give credit to their 
authority, and so trust them as our guides ; but we can go, 
in such a case, no further than they lead the way. Inspi- 
ration was necessary to reveal an occult sense to them ; 
and as we are not inspired, so we cannot give an occult 
sense to passages which they have not explained. In the 
case supposed, it was not fancy, imagination, conceit, 
which led them to play upon words and to give to them 
mysterious and conjectural meanings. If they have actual- 
ly exhibited the occult sense in any case, it must of course 
have been by virtue of light from above. 

It would be gaining not a little, if even so much should 
be admitted by all. We should then, at least, be kept with- 
in bounds very narrow, in comparison with those which 
many interpreters have set up. One simple rule would 
suffice ; and this would be, that we must merely follow on 
in the same path in which the New Testament writers 
have taken the lead, and not strike out new ways or by- 
paths for ourselves. 

But a more important view of this subject remains to be 
taken : Have the New Testament writers made out, in any 
case, a double sense to the words of the Old Testament 
Scriptures ? 

A moderate volume could be easily filled with the discus- 
sion of this question ; but necessity obliges me to comprise 
what I now have to say in a few paragraphs. 

I do not find but two ways in which the Jewish Scrip- 
tures are employed in the New Testament, so far as the 
subject of prediction or prophecy is concerned. The first 
is too plain to need any particular comment; it is where a 



32 DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 

passage in the Old Testament is simply and directly pro- 
phetic, and is appealed to or cited as merely prophetic. 
Such are the passages, as I must believe, cited from Is. 
liii. Ps. n. xvi. xxn. xlv. ex., and many other places. 
We need not, with Cocceius, bishop Home, and other 
writers of this description, find Christ every where in the 
Old Testament ; nor need we, as has been said of Grotius, 
come to the conclusion that he is to be found no where in 
it. There is some middle path between these extremes. 
If the Old Testament Scriptures have not predicted a Mes- 
siah, and have not indeed often predicted him, then the 
persuasion and the reasoning of Christ and his apostles, in 
respect to this subject, have no good foundation on which 
they can rest. 'If they have foretold a Messiah, why not 
leave them to speak out this great truth plainly, simply, 
without any vxovoia or occult sense ? For example ; why, 
in the second and 45th Psalms, should we suppose the coro- 
nation of David and the marriage of Solomon to be de- 
scribed or sung, by the first and literal sense of the words, 
and then that the Messiah is obscurely hinted at in the 
way of an occult sense I Is not one greater than David to 
be found in the second Psalm, and greater than Solomon 
in the forty-fifth '? So I must think. David was not crown- 
ed king on the holy hill of Zion ; nor was he begotten of 
God on the day of coronation ; nor had he the uttermost 
parts of the earth for his possession ; nor were his enemies 
broken in pieces like a potter's vessel ; nor are all men in- 
vited to put their trust in him. Solomon was not most 
mighty in war ; nor did his right hand teach terrible 
things ; nor was his throne forever and ever ; nor was he 
addressed by the title God {XPtf?®)\ nor did his children 
become princes in all the earth ; nor are all people exhort- 
ed to praise him forever and ever. Truly a greater than 
David or Solomon is here. No double sense is needed ; 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



33 



none is even admissible. What advantage, in any respect, 
can be gained by the admission of one ? 

All that can with strict propriety be said of these, and 
of many other like cases, is simply, that the sacred writers 
of ancient times, when they come to disclose a future king 
Messiah and his extended and peaceful reign, borrow the 
costume of their picture from objects then before their own 
minds and those of their readers. From David and Solo- 
mon traits of resemblance are borrowed, in order to com- 
plete the sketch of a future and spiritual king. Not mere 
choice, but absolute necessity dictated this. How could 
the future be disclosed, except by language selected from 
that in present use, and by likenesses drawn from present 
objects ? It is surely no good reason for finding a double 
sense, that a prophet has undertaken to disclose the future, 
by presenting it through similitudes of the present. ? 

This leads me to consider a second method in which the 
New Testament writers have cited and employed the lan- 
guage of the Old Testament, viz. by suggesting resem- 
blances between past and future events. 

This includes all which is properly called type in the 
Old Testament. Type means a resemblance of two things, 
not an occult sense of words. The epistle to the Hebrews 
has shown us, that many things under the old dispensation 
were, and were designed to be, typical, i. e. they bore a 
resemblance to objects or transactions of the new dispen- 
sation. It is through the medium of this epistle that we 
come more fully to learn, that many of the Jewish religious 
rites were typical. Indeed, we cannot well conceive how 
it should be otherwise. God has no pleasure in rites, 
forms, ceremonies, and sacrifices, in themselves considered, 
and for their own sake. To be worthy of him, they must 
shadow forth something of the future and Messianic dis- 
pensation. Thus the paschal-lamb was a type of the Lamb 



34 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



of God which taketh away the sins of the world ; the office 
of the high-priest was typical of the atoning and propitia- 
tory office of Christ ; and the like as to many other things. 
But in all these cases, and in all like to them, there is 
nothing of a double sense to words. The words which 
describe the rites, sacrifices, or occurrences, of the ancient 
dispensation, are to be interpreted in their plain, usual, 
historical sense ; for example, the institution of the passo- 
ver in Ex. xn. When this is done, an interpreter, so far 
as the exegesis of mere language is concerned, has fully dis- 
charged his duty. But another question may arise, subse- 
quent to this, viz., Whether the things thus described do 
not afford resemblances of future things under the new 
dispensation ? Christ and the apostles have decided that 
they do ; and even more than this is apparently decided, for 
they seem plainly to teach us, that many of the ancient 
rites, and transactions, and persons also, were designed to 
be types of good, things to come. It is this which makes 
them truly types. Surely it is not every resemblance which 
fancy can draw between an earlier and later occurrence or 
personage, that constitutes a type in a true and scriptural 
sense. We must limit types of this character only to such 
things or persons, as were designed to afford resemblances 
that might convey instruction to the ancient church. 

Will any one, who believes in the divine authority of the 
New Testament, call in question the fact, that the paschal 
lamb, the Jewish sacrifices at large, the high-priest's office, 
and other things of the like nature, were designedly em- 
blems of the future ? If any do question this, I am not 
among the number. But then, in all these cases of types, 
there is only an emblem of the future, or a resemblance of 
something future, in the things or persons of ancient days, 
and no second sense to words which describe those things. 
If, moreover, the Jewish dispensation was designed to be 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



35 



preparatory to the Christian one, what less could be ra- 
tionally expected, than that there would be such a signifi- 
cancy in many of its institutions ? 

On the same ground, for substance, we may place a 
class of texts cited in the New Testament, which have gen- 
erally been regarded as the most difficult of all. Let us 
select an example which comprises in itself all the serious 
difficulties that can attend the subject, in any part of the 
New Testament. In Matt. 2: 15, the writer refers to the 
flight of Joseph and Mary with the infant Jesus to Egypt, 
and their subsequent departure from that country in order 
to go again to Palestine. He appeals, for confirmation of 
the fact that all these arrangements were under the guid- 
ance of a superintending power, to a passage in Hosea 11: 
1, which says : " When Israel was a child I loved him, and 
called my Son out of Egypt." As written by the prophet 
this is no part of a prediction, and is not designed to be 
one, but it is a simple declaration of a historical truth. 
Yet the Evangelist says, that when Jesus went down to 
Egypt, and was to be recalled from that country, that all 
this was a fulfilment (ntiiQwaig) of what the prophet Hosea 
had said, in the passage just quoted. What then are the 
elements of this case, and of all others like to it ? Simply 
these ; viz., that something transacted, done, performed in 
former days, or any event that happened, if they found an 
antitype or corresponding resemblance under the new dis- 
pensation, might be said to have a nfoiQwaig, i. e. a fulfil- 
ment. But who that ever has studied the New Testament 
references to the ancient Scriptures, does not know that 
the words fulfilment and fulfil have a wide latitude of mean- 
ing ? Any thing which happened or was done in ancient 
times, and which for substance is repeated or takes place 
again under the new dispensation ; any thing later which 
presents a lively resemblance to another and earlier thing ; 



36 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



may be, and often is, spoken of as a nh'tgwaig of that earlier 
thing. It matters not, now, whether the word by strictly 
critical and classical usage would bear this latitude of sense. 
Enough that such is New Testament usage. 

God often calls ancient Israel his child, his son, because 
he was a special object of his love. The Hebrews were 
exiles in the land of Egypt, they were delivered from that 
state by a special providence, and brought to Palestine, the 
promised land. Jesus, the beloved Son of God in a higher 
and nobler sense, was an exile in Egypt, he was delivered 
from this state and brought to Palestine — and all by a spe- 
cial Providence. Angels interposed to accomplish his de- 
liverance. Here then was a case, in which that Son of 
God in whom he was well pleased was brought to Egypt, 
and out of Egypt, in a manner not unlike to that recorded 
in ancient history. What happened in later times, hap- 
pened in a higher and nobler sense than what happened in 
early times. And might it not be said, on this account, 
that there was in this case a nXygojatg ? It is said ; and 
why not justly said, and in a way full of meaning ? 

But even here there is no occult sense of words, in the 
prophet. They are mere plain, simple, historical words. 
Yet the events to which they refer, bear a resemblance to 
subsequent events under the new dispensation ; and on this 
account the latter are named a filling up or fulfilment of 
the former. It is the want of right views as to the use of 
TikrjQbwig and inXrigw&r] in the New Testament, which has 
misled so many interpreters of its quotations. 

In a way not unlike to this last method of applying Old 
Testament Scriptures, we are accustomed continually to 
quote and apply maxims and sentiments from the classic 
writers, without ever supposing that the passages which 
we quote were actual predictions. Like occurrences or 
exigencies call to mind ancient declarations or narrations 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



37 



respecting similar events or occurrences, and those de- 
clarations are therefore cited as applicable to the latter 
events. Thus, to introduce another conspicuous example, 
the 69th Psalm afFords the means of a striking illustration. 
David here describes, in very vivid colors, the persecution 
of his enemies, deprecates their malignity, and predicts 
their overthrow. That his own personal enemies are here 
meant, and that David in propria persona speaks, and for 
himself, is clear from the tenor of the composition. That 
David is originally and personally meant, and not Christ, 
is clear from v. 5 : " O God, thou knowest my foolish- 
ness, and my sins are not hidden from thee." Could he 
" who knew no sin" make such a confession? No ; here 
is the proper and original David, and here in the context are 
his personal enemies. Yet in v. 9th we find the expres- 
sion : " The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up and 
this is applied by the disciples to Jesus, when he drove 
from the temple the traffickers who profaned it, John 2: 17. 
So again, in v. 21 : " They gave me gall for my meat, and 
in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," which is ap- 
plied to Jesus in John 19 : 28, 29, and probably in Matt. 
27: 34, 48, and Mark 15 : 23. John intimates, that when 
the vinegar was given to Jesus on the cross, there was " a 
fulfilment of the Scriptures." And undoubtedly there was, 
in the sense already explained. There was an event like 
to that in ancient times. David's bitter enemies persecu- 
ted him to the greatest extremity. They " gave him gall 
to eat and vinegar to drink ;" not in the literal sense, pro- 
bably, but in the figurative one. But the spiritual David 
was persecuted more bitterly still, even unto death. Lite- 
rally even did they give him vinegar to drink mingled with 
gall, Matt. 27: 34. Here was a nlrjgcjtng, a filling up, a com- 
pleting in a higher sense, of that which was done in ancient 
times. A more important personage was here concerned ; 
4 



DOUBLE SENSE OF FROPHECT. 



and the passage of Scripture in Ps. 69 : 21 , when applied 
to Jesus, stands forth as a most prominent and lively de- 
scription of his sufferings. 

Once more, in respect to this same Psalm : in Romans 
11: 19, Paul quotes vs. 22, 23, (with some little variation 
from the original), and applies them to the state of the 
Jews in his day, as descriptive of their blindness, stupidi- 
ty, and unbelief. Literally and originally the descriptions 
here were applied to David's enemies ; bat David's Son, 
who is called Lord by his earthly ancestor (Matt. 22: 4-5), 
applies them with still greater force to his own enemies. 

Nor is even this all the use which is made in the New 
Testament of this strikingly descriptive Psalm. Peter 
(Acts 1: 20) applies to Judas the '25th verse: "Let his 
habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein.''* He 
even adds, that the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, 
spake concerning Judas (v. 16), and apparently he means 
to include Ps. 69: 25 in what was said : see Acts 1: 20, which 
begins the quotation with a -/u.q. In the same breath, Pe- 
ter quotes another passage from Ps. 109: 9, (which Psalm 
is altogether of the like tenor with Ps. lxix.), which runs 
thus : 14 His bishopric let another man take.''" The fair 
question now is : Was Judas originally meant here ! The 
tenor of both Psalms shows clearly that he was not. Yet 
David, as king, was beyond all reasonable doubt a type of 
king Messiah : and what is done in respect to the type, 
may, by the usage of the New Testament writers, be ap- 
plied to the antitype. The Holy Ghost did truly speak 
that which is applicable to Judas, or which deeply con- 
cerns Judas, inasmuch as he hath, by the mouth of David, 
spoken respecting David's enemies what is exactly and high- 
ly descriptive of Judas' character and destiny. 

In all the New Testament there occur no cases of great- 
er difficulty, than those which have now been brought be- 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



39 



fore the reader's mind. He will bear me witness, then, 
that I am not disposed to avoid the question which such 
passages bring up, nor by any management to keep it out 
of sight. If he hesitates to explain the New Testament 
quotations as I have done, I can only solicit him to study 
thoroughly the whole subject of quotations, and then to 
take also into view the usual ancient and Jewish method 
of quoting and applying Scripture, as exhibited in the 
Mishna, the Gemara, and the writings of the Rabbins. If 
he does not come to the same conclusion, at last, which I 
have now developed, I can only say, that his views and his 
modes of reasoning must be exceedingly different from 
those which the great mass of well informed interpreters 
have of late exhibited. 

I can find, then, no warrant in the New Testament for 
giving a double sense to the words of the Old Testament. 
And if it be a fact that the apostles have so interpreted 
the Hebrew Scriptures, it is no warrant for me, or any other 
uninspired person, to interpret them in such a way, beyond 
what the apostles have already done. Plainly, a meaning 
not discoverable by any of the laws or principles of lan- 
guage, (and surely such is the vnovoiet in question), can be 
discovered with certainty only by the guidance of inspira- 
tion. All short of this must be conjecture merely ; and on 
conjecture we cannot establish either doctrine or prophecy. 
We wait then for proof, among all the mystic interpreters 
of former or latter days, of supernatural divine guidance 
and illumination as to their exegesis. We are aware, that 
Bengel believed he had found such guidance in respect to 
the meaning of the beast in the Apocalypse whose number 
is 666 ; but we are also aware, that his grand climacteric 
of A. D. 1836 has passed by without any of the confident- 
ly expected events. We are aware that thousands, with 
incomparably less of piety and learning than John Albert 



40 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



Bengel, have laid claim to the like, and even to greater 
disclosures, through the special influence of the Spirit. 
But we have still to learn, from what quarter credible testi- 
mony to such alleged supernatural aid is to come. It is 
not enough that a man spiritualizes ; nor even that he is 
expert and eloquent in spiritualizing. It does not suffice, 
that he can make the unlearned and the lovers of fancy 
and romance to stare and wonder at his talent for evoking 
spirituality from any and every part of the Old Testament, 
and specially from prophecy. It is not enough, that he can 
look down with scorn on those who make little or no ac- 
count of claims to such gifts at the present time ; or that 
he contemplates with disdain a want of power to understand 
the Bible in any other way than through the medium of the 
intellect, and compares such persons with the devils who 
believe and tremble. All this, and more of the same tenor, 
has been said so long and so often, that the ear listens to 
it now only as the usual monotony ; and the diligent in- 
quirer, who is resolved to make his way to his own heart 
through the medium of his intellect, makes up his mind to 
be included under the category of Intellectualists, what- 
ever may be the loss of popularity which this will occasion 
him among the Mystics. 

With an open face then we ask : Where is the proof, 
that either prophecy, or any other part 6i the Old Testa- 
ment, or of the New, conveys a double sense ? Where is 
the authority for deciding what the occult sense is, or 
must be ? Where is the defence for trampling upon the 
laws of interpretation applicable to all other books, when 
we come to expound the Scriptures ? Where are we, when 
we once give the rein, without control, to mere fancy and 
imagination ? By what wonder-working process shall we 
make a genealogical table as significant and doctrinal as the 
19th Psalm, or the Sermon on the Mount ? By what power 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



41 



of transformation shall the list of furniture for the temple 
become as instructive to us as the ten commandments, or 
as Paul's summaries of Christian morality and piety in his 
epistles ? 

In the name of all that is grave, serious, rational, intel- 
lectual, respectful to God's eternal truth, or intelligible in 
propounding the way of salvation to men, I protest against 
such an abuse of reason, of the holy Scriptures, and of all 
the established principles of language. It is not enough 
that men mean ivell, to entitle them thus to sport with the 
Bible. That book is no toy for the sport of fancy and ca- 
price. He who is in the proper attitude for hearing an ad- 
dress of the King of kings, is not in a frame of mind to un- 
ravel charades, and conundrums, and enigmas which are 
more skilfully ambiguous than that of GEdipus. The Ma- 
jesty of heaven does not expect trifling with his messages. 

Tell me not, I would say again, that the Bible can be 
rendered more useful, by admitting a second or spiritual 
sense. Whose office is it to mend what God has done? 
To whom does it belong to supply the defects of his reve- 
lation ? Who shall decide, that he has not communicated 
what he meant to communicate, and all that he meant to 
communicate, by the Scripture interpreted agreeably to 
the common laws and principles of language and of the hu- 
man mind in reference to language ? Authority must come 
from above, in order to entitle any man to undertake this. 
And as to those who do undertake it — what is their rule 
or limit ? The more sober among them dare not venture 
to make an occult sense out of a passage, which may serve 
as the basis of a single doctrine or precept. The analogy 
of plain Scripture must come in aid of the second sense, 
before they can even venture upon it. Of what use then 
can all this spiritualizing and allegorizing be to the church ? 
The most to which it can lay claim is, to please the fancy 
4* 



42 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



and gratify the imagination. But with what ? Plainly 
with the mere ingenuity of the preacher or writer ; for this 
is all which comes fairly into the account. To aim at 
making God's word more significant and profitable than he 
has made it — is not an undertaking in which men should 
lightly engage. 

In whatever light the matter is viewed, it will not bear 
the test of rigid scrutiny. At all events, let those who 
have a predominant inclination to this fancy work, go no 
further than they themselves will venture to maintain that 
the writers of the New Testament have led them. The 
ground is too dangerous and uncertain to be occupied an 
inch beyond this mark, even as the matter appears to them. 
There is one simple principle that should run through all 
preaching and all expositions ; which is, that the mind of 
the scriptural writer should be given as it was originally 
expressed by his language. The meaning of any book, is 
simply what the writer had in his own mind and intended 
to express. This being given, the work of interpretation 
is done. For the rest, the process is easy. Manente rati- 
one manet ipsa lex includes the whole. So far as our circum- 
stances and relations are like those of the persons to whom 
the Scriptures were originally addressed, so far what was 
said to them is binding upon us ; but no farther. It is 
thus that the Scriptures are indeed profitable for doctrine 
to all ; for all have the like relations to God, and the like 
relations to their fellow beings ; and nothing, therefore, in 
the Bible can be a mere dead letter to us. But to make 
all parts of the Bible equally significant and instructive, 
under pretence of piety and spirituality and reverence for 
the Scriptures — is not this to abuse the gift of reason, and 
to take away all respect on the part of intelligent men for 
the advocates of scriptural religion, and to do a violence 
to the laws of interpretation and to the first principles of lan- 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



43 



guage, for which no alleged edification can in any measure 
compensate ? Nothing short of renewed inspiration can 
make sure our footing, while standing upon such a ground 
as this. 

I might now quit this topic, were it not that when the 
subject comes to a point like that which has now been be- 
fore us, a new direction is given to it, which needs some 
further attention. 

When we say, that the Scriptures mean what the authors 
of them designed they should mean, we are not unfre- 
quently arrested here by questions such as the following : 
Who then is the proper Author of the Scriptures ? And 
if God be that author , by his Spirit, then may we not well 
suppose that the words of Scripture are more significant 
than the common laws of language would allow them to be 1 

I will not allege, that the subject, as presented by these 
questions, is attended by no difficulties. Yet it seems to 
me, after the most careful attention which I have been able 
to bestow upon it, that these difficulties are not insuperable. 

When God speaks to men, in the way of a revelation, 
he speaks by men, and through the medium of human 
language, or by symbols which are equivalent to language. 
In either case, the object is to reveal something, or to teach 
something. We will suppose now that he addresses them 
" with the language of angels what revelation is in reality 
made by the address ? Just as much, we may reply, as 
would be made, should we now address one of our peasants 
in Hebrew or Arabic ; and no more. To speak in an un- 
known language, without interpreting it, or furnishing means 
to interpret it, is of course making no revelation at all ; it 
is teaching nothing. 

The Bible furnishes abundant evidence that the real 
mode of divine revelation is very different from this. To 
the Hebrews, Hebrew discourse was addressed ; to the 



44 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



Jews when speaking Chaldee, Chaldee discourse ; to Jews 
and Gentiles, when both could read and understand Greek, 
Greek discourse. Why ? For the simple and most co- 
gent of all reasons, viz., that what was revealed might 
be understood. But if the common laws of interpretation 
were not applicable to what was said, then of course it could 
not be understood. But inasmuch as the whole tenor of 
the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures shows that the usual 
laws of language are observed, we must have some new 
and special revelation in order to authorize us to believe, 
that the Bible is to be exempted from these laws. Or if a 
part is to be interpreted by the usual laws of exegesis, and 
a part to be exempted from them, who will show us where 
the line of distinction is to be drawn between these two 
very diverse portions of the divine word ? No one has 
yet solved this question. The mode of proceeding in re- 
spect to the vTibvoia has been, that every one " has done 
what was right in his own eyes." But are we indeed left 
in such a condition as this ? Are we, after all, left in the 
dark ; and this too, when we are launched on a boundless 
ocean without rudder or compass ? 

There must be some very important purposes to be an- 
swered by occult Scripture, if it be indeed true that it is 
in and of itself occult. Most readily do I concede, for my 
own experience teaches me every day, that many portions 
of Scripture are in a measure occult to me. But why ? 
Merely because I am not so familiar with the original lan- 
guages of Scripture and the objects there referred to, that 
the bare reading or hearing of it will suffice to make me 
understand it. It is occult to me, merely and only because 
I am wanting in knowledge appropriate to the right un- . 
derstanding of it. But was it so dark originally, to those 
who were addressed by the sacred writers ? How can we 
credit this ? The prophets were preachers in part. In- 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY. 



45 



deed their main business was preaching. Prediction, in 
the strict sense of the word, belongs to but quite a subor- 
dinate part of their works. Was their preaching then in- 
telligible ? I need not stop to prove this ; for the bare state- 
ment of the case does of itself make it incontrovertible. 
God does not mock men by addressing them in an un- 
known language, and then making them responsible for 
disobedience to his commands delivered in that language. 
The preaching of the prophets must have been intelligible 
to their contemporaries, in the same manner as well-com- 
posed gospel-sermons are now intelligible to the great mass 
of the Christian community among us. It was doubtless 
true in ancient times, as it is now, that there were some 
individuals too ignorant to comprehend all which the pro- 
phets uttered in their sermons ; still it was then as it is 
now, i. e. the language of preaching must have been intel- 
ligible to all intelligent people. 

If now we could in all respects place ourselves in the 
condition of those who were originally addressed by the 
sacred writers, we should then understand at once nearly 
every thing in the Scriptures without any difficulty ; just 
as easily as we now understand religious instructions from 
our pulpits. All the dictionaries, grammars, commenta- 
ries, and learned exegetical essays of our libraries might 
at once be dispensed with ; at all events we should need 
them no more than we need Lowth's English Grammar, 
and Johnson's Dictionary, in order to understand our com- 
mon mother tongue. 

So far, I think, all my readers will be ready to agree 
with me. When God addresses men, in order to instruct, 
or reprove, or console, he will of course speak what is in- 
telligible. 

But there is another and somewhat different view, 
which is sometimes taken of various predictions of the Old 



46 



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROrHECY. 



Testament, and also of the New. This is, as its abettors 
allege, that they are, from the nature of the case, not only 
somewhat obscure, but are in fact, i. e. they were origi- 
nally, designed to be obscure. Not only are many of them 
clothed in language which is highly figurative, but the dic- 
tion is even of design enigmatical. God, as it is alleged, 
had undoubtedly a definite meaning in his own mind, 
which he attached to the language that was employed, but 
this meaning was designedly veiled from men in general, 
and sometimes even from the prophets themselves. 

That, when the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets and 
led them to utter predictions, he himself attached a wider 
and fuller and more definite extent of meaning to the words 
employed, than the prophets did or could, I cannot doubt. 
All the future was perfectly known to the Spirit of God. 
It is, indeed, an easy matter to illustrate this. When New- 
ton or La Place used the word sun, it recalled to their minds 
all the astronomical views of that luminary which they had 
acquired by study ; while the peasant, who employs the same 
word, means only the apparent luminary of the skies which 
rises and sets and scatters light and warmth over all the 
earth. But if Newton or La Place were to converse with 
any persons destitute of astronomical knowledge, they 
would of course employ the word sun only in a sense in- 
telligible to them. On any other ground they could not 
expect to be understood. 

Like to this, now, must be the case in regard to pro- 
phetic revelation. If God reveals the future to men, then 
he must speak so as to be understood. The things sug- 
gested by the words employed, are, beyond all question, 
understood by him incomparably better than they can be 
by men. But the question before us is, not what know- 
ledge God possesses, but, what has he designed to reveal? 
Now if he employs words as the medium of a revelation 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE ? 



47 



respecting the future, then those words are to be interpre- 
ted by the ordinary rules of language, or else there is of 
course no revelation made by them. An occult sense here 
is of course no sense at all. 

Put the case now, for example, that Rev. xn. was unin- 
telligible to those whom John addressed, and of course is 
so to us ; then what was the object in writing Rev. xn. 1 
Certainly not to reveal any thing to the church then, or 
since ; for, on the ground taken, nothing is revealed. Of 
what use then are such, predictions, (if we may apply such 
a misnomer to them), to the church of Christ ? Surely 
they can have been of no use, thus far. For what purpose 
then was the Apocalypse written ? If we may follow the 
suggestions of the book, in all parts of it, it was written to 
encourage and console Christians in the midst of severe 
trials and fiery persecutions — to console them with the cer- 
tain prospect of the triumphs of the church over all her ene- 
mies. But what consolation or what instruction could be 
derived from those parts of the book, which were intelligi- 
ble neither to John himself, nor to any of his readers ? 
None — none ! What shall we say then ? Has God spoken 
for no purpose ? Or has he spoken for a particular pur- 
pose, and yet in such a way as not at all to answer that 
purpose ? I cannot venture on such positions. 

But here the subject is wont to take a new turn, which 
leads us to the second topic proposed for discussion. 



§ 3. Prophecy not intelligible until it is fulfilled. 

There are not a few prophecies respecting which we are 
told, that God has a meaning which is attached to the lan- 
guage employed, although it has not yet been developed. 
When the events come to pass to which the prophecy relates, 



48 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE ? 



then, and not till then, shall we be able to understand the 
ivords of the prediction. 

I have found this sentiment echoed and re-echoed 
so often among expositors of the prophecies, even by 
such enlightened men as Hengstenburg, and Tholuck too, 
that I have been forced upon an examination of its claims 
to our credit. It has become, with many, a kind of uni- 
versal menstruum, in which all the difficulties of the pro- 
phecies are solved. When we get to the utmost limits of 
our knowledge respecting them, then we are warned to in- 
clude all the rest within the domain of hallowed secrecy. 
In fact, some even lay claim to credit for piety, in such an 
unreserved submission, as they deem it, to the divine will. 
Happy do some count the lot of those, who merely wonder, 
in such cases, at " the ways of God which are past finding 
out." How comfortable moreover it is, when we can not 
only cover over the faults of our imperfect knowledge in a 
way so creditable, but also dispense with all future effort 
and trouble, which would result from pursuing inquiries 
into the dark domain of the Scripture ! 

All the attention which I have bestowed on these views, 
so common among one class of interpreters, has never en- 
abled me to see or feel the justice or propriety of them. 
Let us now suppose a case for the sake of illustration. 
John, we will say, has uttered many things in the Apoca- 
lypse, which will never be understood until they are fulfil- 
led. Let it be, then, that 2000 years after he has written 
his book those things are to be fulfilled. The first ques- 
tion that we naturally ask, is : To what purpose did John 
write those predictions ? During 2000 years they have been, 
or will be, by concession, neither more nor less than a dead 
letter. The church of course is neither admonished, nor in- 
structed, nor comforted. Why then were they written ? 
Was it to show that God can move in a mysterious way, 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE ? 



49 



and shroud himself in clouds and darkness ? There is 
proof enough of this in every quarter of his works, without 
a resort to such means. All heaven and earth bear wit- 
ness that his ways are often past finding out. And would 
he resort, then, for the sake of making this impression, to 
such means as those now under consideration ? The sug- 
gestion seems derogatory to his majesty and dignity. To 
make a revelation — and yet that revelation (so called) be 
entirely unintelligible ? How can we conceive of his sport- 
ing with the hopes and expectations of men in such a way ? 
To make one, moreover, which for thousands of years re- 
mains a perfect enigma to his church — is this any relief of 
the difficulty ? To my own mind, at least, it is none at 
all. 

But this is not the end of the matter. There is a still 
more serious difficulty to be met. We are told that c the pro- 
phecy will be understood then, and only then, when the thing 
predicted comes to pass. 1 What then is the thing which 
comes to pass ? I may surely be permitted to ask this 
question. What is the thing predicted? It is conceded, 
that by the laws of language no proper meaning has been, 
or can be, made out from the prophecy in question. But 
after 2000 years, something will take place, it is said, to 
which we may apply it. Apply what? If an event is com- 
pared with a prophecy, the only means of comparison pos- 
sible is, that we first assign some definite meaning to the 
prophecy, and then compare the event with that meaning. 
If this be not the case, then we merely make a compari- 
son of a known thing with one that is unknown. How then 
are we to ascertain that they agree, when we confess that 
one of the two things compared is (so to speak) an un- 
known quantity ? So long as it is unknown, or tieated as 
unknown, we can have no means of ascertaining whether 
there is an agreement, or not, in the case supposed. 

5 



50 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE ? 



Is not this whole matter, moreover, mere reasoning in a 
circle? The prophecy (an unknown something) agrees 
with the event, because the event agrees with the prophe- 
cy ! Some laws of language then, after all, must first be 
applied to the prophecy, in order to make out any definite 
meaning ; and if so, why could not these have been appli- 
ed at a period antecedent, as well as now ? It seems im- 
possible to vindicate with success any such method of rea- 
soning — such a complete vutzqov ngoregov as this. A pro- 
phecy which is unintelligible by the laws of language, can 
never be a revelation ; nor can there ever be any certainty 
among uninspired men, that it is truly and correctly under- 
stood. 

It would not be proper, however, to dismiss this topic 
without some additional remarks, which may aid us in ex- 
plaining the ground, why the principle in question has been 
so extensively admitted, among many interpreters whose 
piety and learning cannot well be called in question. 

Words are the signs of things. Words, as originally 
employed by a writer or speaker, designate the view of 
things which exists in his own mind. But it must be re- 
membered, that words, which have been formed by men 
whose knowledge is imperfect, (and all words are so form- 
ed), cannot, from the nature of the case in many instances, 
convey complete or perfect ideas or make complete repre- 
sentations of many things. The reason is, that there is 
much belonging to most objects of which men speak, which 
is not understood or known by them ; and what is un- 
known they do not, and cannot, definitely describe. For 
example; the words God, heaven, hell, soul, etc., while 
they convey the definite ideas that men have concerning 
these respective objects, yet do not convey to our minds 
any description of that which is unknown to us, but which 
at the same time belongs to these objects. There may be 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE 1 



51 



(hen, and in respect to most objects there are, many things 
appertaining, which no human language describes or can 
describe ; and this for the simple reason, that language is 
employed to describe what we do know, or suppose ourselves 
to Jcnoiv, and not to describe that of which we have no 
knowledge or conception. 

It does not make against this view of the subject at all, 
that there are many words which stand as signs of things 
which are for the most part unknown to us. For example ; 
the word gravity, or the phrase power of gravity, desig- 
nates a something in the earth and planets which attracts 
material objects toward them, while, at the same time, we 
pretend to no complete knowledge of the real nature, attri- 
butes, place, manner of existence, etc., of that something, 
but only so far as the attraction just mentioned develops 
them. After all, then, the words gravity, ox power of grav- 
ity, designate only so much of that something as we know, 
or at least suppose ourselves to know. 

So in many other cases ; we see developments of pow- 
ers or of substances, (as we suppose them to be), which af- 
ford us only some twilight-rays to aid us in the cognizance 
of those substances and powers themselves. For example ; 
electricity, magnetism, and light, are words that convey 
ideas to our minds which are definite to a certain extent. 
But beyond this they designate nothing specific. If these 
words are still employed by any one in order to designate 
a supposed something beyond our knowledge, they are, if I 
may so speak, like some exponents in algebra, the mere 
signs of a quantity unknown. 

But we will suppose now, that some being who has a 
perfect acquaintance with the substances named, employs 
the same words to designate them. To these words he 
may affix a meaning, of course, which corresponds with the 
extent of his knowledge. But he cannot expect others, 



52 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE? 



possessed of only an imperfect knowledge, to understand 
the words in all respects as he does. 

We will admit now that God, (if we may, with rever- 
ence, suppose him to employ human language), having a 
perfect knowledge of all things, connects with that lan- 
guage many ideas unknown to us, and in our present state 
not knowable to us. Still, what God knows in and of him- 
self, is one thing ; what he reveals, or designs to reveal, is 
quite another. Surely no one will say, that God under- 
takes to reveal to us that which we are incapable of know- 
ing. To suppose this, would be virtually to impeach his 
wisdom, his paternal kindness, and even his perfect know- 
ledge. When God speaks to men, it is that he may be un- 
derstood by them ; for on any other ground he does not 
truly speak to them. 

It is not then all which is in his mind, that the words of 
Scripture are intended to designate. It is only so much 
as may be revealed ; and if revealed by words, then those 
words must bear the sense which the usus loquendi gives 
them, or else no revelation is made by them. 

When predictions of future and distant events are utter- 
ed, no words, it will be admitted, can of themselves de- 
scribe all which appertains to those events. God indeed 
knows all ; but he does not communicate, nor does he de- 
sign to communicate, all his knowledge to men. To as- 
sume that a prophecy is designed to reveal all which the 
divine mind knows respecting the event predicted, is such 
an assumption as no reason or laws of language can jus- 
tify. 

The question then comes fairly before us : How much 
does the Holy Spirit mean to convey, by the words of any 
particular prophecy? The answer is not difficult. God 
speaks by men, and for men. The prophets were inspired 
by the Holy Ghost. But why ? In order that they might 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE ? 



53 



with certainty and authority give information respecting 
things past, present, or future. To give information ne- 
cessarily presupposes, that they themselves possessed it 
If the Holy Spirit employs such a medium of communica- 
tion, i. e. speaks through -prophets, it is plainly in order 
that human language may be addressed to human beings. 
The language employed, therefore, means just what the 
writers designed it should mean. Every book is fully in- 
terpreted, when the exact mind of the writer is unfolded. 

Were the prophets then omniscient, even when inspired ? 
Plainly not. The Bible is full of evidence, that inspira- 
tion teaches only what pertains to religious truth and duty, 
not the arts and sciences. And even religious truth is not 
taught in a manner absolutely complete and perfect, but 
only relatively so. In our present state, we can only " know 
in part, and believe in part." " We see through a glass 
darkly." All that is now needed by us is revealed. So 
much, therefore, the prophets understood. But if they ut- 
tered words as mere automata, which they did not them- 
selves understand, then they neither received nor imparted 
any revelation. At least, what they did not understand was 
no revelation to them. And if they, even when illuminated 
and guided by the Holy Spirit, could not understand what 
was imparted to them, is it reasonable to suppose that others, 
who were addressed by them and were uninspired, could 
understand such communications? Surely such a suppo- 
sition would be altogether unreasonable. And how can 
that which is not known, and cannot be known, be called 
a revelation with any propriety 1 

I am well aware that I shall be met here with the alle- 
gation, that the Scriptures often represent the prophets as 
not understanding what they uttered, and therefore the 
meaning of their language, it is said, cannot be limited to 
what they meant to say. But although this has been often 
5* 



54 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE '? 



and confidently affirmed, I have never been able to satisfy 
myself that it is correct. The case of speaking in unknown 
tongues, as set forth in 1 Cor. xiv., is appealed to as con- 
clusive in favor of the position just mentioned. But this 
will not sustain the appeal. In 1 Cor. 14 : 4, Paul tells us 
that ,c he who speaketh in an unknown tongue edificth him- 
self" If so, then he himself, at least, must understand the 
meaning of what he utters ; for what edification can there 
be in unintelligible words or sounds 1 The unknown tongue 
which is spoken of, was unknown only to the hearers, in a 
case of this nature. Nor is it any solid and satisfactory 
answer to this view of the case, that the apostle recognizes 
instances, in which the speaker cannot interpret to others, 
what he himself has uttered, 1 Cor. 14: 13. To be enabled 
to utter things in a foreign language, and to possess the 
power of readily translating that language so as to edify a 
public assembly, may be, and plainly were, two different 
gifts. In some cases, as appears from 1 Cor. xiv., the 
same person possessed both gifts ; and the apostle directs 
him anxiously to seek for both, 1 Cor. 14: 13. In others, 
another and a different person interpreted, 1 Cor. 14: 26 
« — 28. The exact nature, extent, and modifications of the 
gift of tongues, are matters now beyond the reach of our 
thorough investigation. But thus much seems to be quite 
certain, viz., that he, " who speaketh to God," and " edi- 
neth himself" by speaking (1 Cor. 14: 2 — 4), must under- 
stand what he says. The whole tenor of 1 Cor. xiv. goes 
to show, that words not understood, and not intelligible, 
can administer edification to no one. 

An appeal is also made to 1 Pet. 1: 11, 12, as declaring 
that the prophets made diligent search, in order to under- 
stand what they themselves uttered. But I can find no 
such sentiment there. Peter says, first, that they prophe- 
sied respecting the gracious dispensation of the gospel, 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE ? 



55 



v. 10 ; secondly, that " they searched at what [time] and 
what manner of time, (h$ tlva 1} nolov xaigov), the things 
would take place which were the subject of revelation," 
L e. when Christ would appear, and what would be the 
form, and manner of his dispensation. Tlva I understand 
here to be an interrogative, agreeing with xaigov. If the 
apostle had designed to say, that they searched into what 
things they had uttered, he would have adopted another 
form of expression ; or, at all events, have expressed him- 
self thus : hq ilva, xal nolov xaigov. Even then rlva would 
be altogether obscure, when thus separated from xvuqov* 
Nor, in such a case, could it be interpreted as signifying, 
that they made search in order to know the meaning of 
what they had uttered, but merely after farther knowledge 
respecting the subjects of which they had spoken. This 
was perfectly natural ; for the subjects were of the highest 
importance, and must have excited a deep interest in their 
minds. As the text now stands, however, nothing more is 
affirmed, than that the prophets sought to know at what time, 
i. e. when, the Messianic dispensation would be ushered in, 
and also to extend their information as to the form and 
manner of this dispensation ; for so uq . . . nolov xaigov 
must mean. It follows now very naturally, in the third 
place, that in answer to their inquiries it was revealed to 
them, that only the distant future would be the period of 
development. In all this there is nothing which declares 
or even intimates, that the prophets did not understand 
what they had uttered. The passage only shows, that they 
were anxious to know the time and manner of the new dis- 
pensation. These, at first, had not been revealed ; and 
even afterwards, only so much was disclosed as enabled 
them to see, that a distant period was reserved for the Mes- 
sianic development, so that it could not take place in their 
day. 



56 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE ? 



In the books of Daniel, of Zechariah, and of Revelation 
which are full of symbols, the case not unfrequently occurs 
where the prophet does not at first know the meaning of the 
symbols presented. Nothing could be more natural than 
this. But in each of these books, be it well remembered, 
the prophet is represented as being accompanied by his 
angel-interpreter , who explains what was obscure in any 
symbol. Why this ? Why was not the symbol left for 
future explanation, to be made at some distant period ? 

In one case, Dan. 12: 8, the prophet declares that " he 
heard and understood not." But to what does this relate? 
Evidently to what was suggested to his mind by the decla- 
rations in v. 7, where it is said, that the end of the wonders 
shall be " after a time, times, and a half," and subsequent to 
the complete scattering of the holy people. Daniel now 
does not inquire, like the angel in v. 6, how long ("^nE"^) 
it shall be to the end of the wonders named, but he asks 
what (~12) the end of those things would be, i. e. to what 
state or condition of things they will lead, or, in other words, 
what will be the sequel, rP"}tlN. If, with one class of in- 
terpreters, we make the word n'nntt (latter end, after part) 
to signify the same as end (yp.) in v. 6, then the interroga- 
tive ivhat (nft) is inappropriate. The question of Daniel, 
therefore, must have respect to the state of things at the 
close of " the time, times, and a half," v. 7. All this is 
made clear by the answer which is given to the question of 
Daniel in v. 8. That answer is, that the result will be, to 
try and purify the righteous, to exasperate and blind the 
wicked, to destroy after a few days " the abomination that 
maketh desolate " (Antiochus Epiphanes), and to confer 
great happiness on those who shall wait for that period and 
live to see it. At the close of all, Daniel is bidden to de- 
part in peace or satisfied with what has been disclosed, un- 
til the end ( m ffib), i. e. until his end or the termination of 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE ? 



57 



his life ; just as the Psalmist says : " Make me to know 
mine end ( n 3tp), Ps. 39: 5. In yjjb, the article supplies 
the place of the pronominal thy. And why in peace or 
satisfied? Because " he shall rest," viz. in his sepulchre; 
" and stand up for his lot," viz. be raised up (avaarrjasTvu, 
the opposite of tftlPi) at the resurrection of the just, in or- 
der to enter upon the glorious reward of his fidelity ; and 
all this ] n 73*r» yjjb, at the end of the days, i. e. at the end 
of time. So the best interpreters agree in explaining this 
verse ; and the very nature of the case shows them to be 
in the right. The reward of Daniel was not dependent on 
the end of Antiochus' days, or of any of the particular times 
which the prophet had designated. In other words ; the 
rest in his sepulchre, (which is obviously meant by jn^ft 
here), was not to be interrupted or ended by a resurrection 
when Antiochus should perish. The end of the days 
means evidently the same thing as the to iskog of Paul, in 
1 Cor. 15: 24.* 

The declaration of Daniel, then, that " he understood 
not," has respect mainly to consequences connected with 

* All the difficulty in this last paragraph of Daniel, results from 
the different meanings of the word yp, translated end. All that 
needs to be noted by an experienced interpreter, is, that this word, 
like many others in the Scriptures, is employed in the way of anta- 
naclasis, i.e. the same word has somewhat different meanings at- 
tached to it in different clauses. In vs. 6 and 9, it designates the 
close of the period mentioned in v. 7 ; in the first clause of v. 13 it 
designates the end of Daniel's life ; and in the last clause of the 
same verse, it signifies the end of time, i. e. of the world-period. 
To an attentive and intelligent reader there can be no difficulty in 
deciding upon this, because the context speaks imperiously for such 
an interpretation. Parallels enough of such antanaclasis might be 
offered ; but this is not the proper place to pursue a discussion of 
such a nature. These remarks have been made in compliance with 
the wishes of some friends, who have found difficulty in interpret- 
ing Dan. 12: 6—13. 



58 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE 1 



the events predicted. So extraordinary were the events, 
that he was astonished and filled with wonder. Very natu- 
rally does he say, therefore, that he does not know what 
they can mean, i. e. what they can betoken ; a declaration 
the like of which we are always prone to make, whenever 
any thing extraordinary fills us with consternation and 
surprise. 

These are the most striking examples to which appeal is 
made, in order to show that the prophets were sometimes 
themselves ignorant of what they uttered. I am not able 
to see, how any sound argument can be built upon them. 
The prophets might be, and very often were, ignorant of 
either the time, or the manner, or the circumstances, or 
the consequences, etc., of things or events which they pre- 
dicted. No one can for a moment doubt this ; for almost 
all prophecies are the mere outlines of future occurrences, 
not minute likenesses. With the exception of some two 
or three passages, even the Messianic prophecies in general 
are of this character. How then can we reasonably sup- 
pose, that more was revealed to the prophets than they 
have expressed ? I know of no proof that can be adduced, 
which will show that they possessed or professed any more 
knowledge of such events than they have developed. To 
attribute to the prophets all the knowledge of the gospel- 
dispensation which may now be acquired, would not be 
walking in the path which Jesus has pointed out, when he 
declared, in reference to the ancient dispensation : " No 
man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son, 
who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him," 
John 1: 18. Nor would it be giving due heed to the declara- 
tion of Paul (2 Tim. 1: 10), who says, that " life and immor- 
tality are brought to light through the gospel." And if the 
prophets themselves possessed only a partial knowledge of 
the things in question, even when inspired, surely it was not 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE ? 



59 



designed that those to whom they originally addressed the 
prophecies should be more enlightened than their inspired 
teachers. What the prophets did know, they have com- 
municated ; and they have done in this case the same 
thing which they have done in all other cases, where they 
have made any revelation, i. e. they have spoken in an in- 
telligible manner what they designed to speak. 

To say that many things are dark to us which they have 
uttered, is only alleging our own ignorance, and is not, 
and cannot be, any proof that they did not speak intelligi- 
bly to their contemporaries. To say that we may now un- 
derstand, better than they did, the tilings or occurrences 
which they predicted, is saying nothing to the present pur- 
pose. It is beyond all doubt true, that the man who visits 
London can better understand a description of that metro- 
polis, than one who never saw it. It is beyond a doubt 
true, that, had we been present at any of the scenes record- 
ed in ancient or in modern history, we could enter with 
more interest and intelligence into the meaning of faithful 
narratives respecting them. But subsequent knowledge, 
acquired by readers at the time when events predicted are 
or have been developed, although it may greatly aid them 
in readily understanding the predictions, can never be the 
rule of exegesis. Any writing means that, and only that, 
which the author designed it should mean. If the author 
of any prophecy, then, had a meaning, (and who will deny 
this ?) we cannot help believing that he designed to impart 
that meaning, and nothing more. And if, for the sake of 
parrying the conclusion that would follow in this case, any 
one should aver, that God is the real author of the Scrip- 
tures, still this will make no important difference. God 
cannot impart all his knowledge to his creatures, i. e. he 
cannot make them omniscient, because their imperfect na- 
tures render this impossible. He imparts so much, and 



60 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE 1 



only so much, as the nature and circumstances of any case 
require; so much as he judges to be beneficial to those 
who are addressed, or to the discipline of his church. 
Nor can we rationally conceive, that he, when intending 
to make a revelation to men through the medium of lan- 
guage, would employ language in any other way than in 
one intelligible to them. The design in question would be 
entirely defeated by such a process. 

Is it not then a great mistake to suppose, after the Gos- 
pel has been in existence for eighteen centuries, and Chris- 
tianity been developing itself during all that period, that the 
more definite and extensive knowledge which we now have, 
or which is now attainable, is to be attributed to the an- 
cient prophets, or is to be regarded as being comprised in 
an occult way in their predictions ? And yet this mistake 
is every day coming before us. We are constantly meet- 
ing with books and sermons and pamphlets, which are at- 
tributing to ancient prophecies a pregnant sense that has 
been occult for some three thousand years, and assigning 
to them all the knowledge that we may now acquire, or 
have acquired. And all this, because Scripture must be 
made to mean all that it can mean, and dark prophecy must 
be illuminated, and can be explained, only by the occur- 
rence of events predicted ! 

In the hands of such interpreters, it is evident that the 
Bible becomes a mere mass of wax, to be moulded and 
impressed in any way which fancy may dictate. And are 
we indeed left thus at the mercy of every man's caprice, 
at the disposal of every enthusiast's imagination ? If so, 
how can we hope for the suffrages of the sober and inquir- 
ing part of the community ? Men of this cast will not lis- 
ten to us, when we invite them to travel with us in the 
dark. We need somewhere, and we must have, some 
terra Jirma ; and to get possession of this, reason, judg- 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE ? 



61 



ment, correct taste, sound discretion, and some good know- 
ledge of the laws of language, are absolutely requisite. 

What says the same Peter, (to whom appeal is so often 
made in order to show that the prophets uttered some 
things which they did not understand), respecting the ob- 
scurity of prophecy ? He says, that, " we have a sure word 
of prophecy, whereunto we do well to take heed, as unto a 
light shining in a dark place" 2 Pet. 1:19. A light shin- 
ing ! But how prophecy is a light, or how it shines, or can 
shine before the events predicted are fulfilled, is a problem 
that cannot be solved on the ground of those whom I am 
here opposing. Instead of being a light, much of prophe- 
cy is (or has been) mere darkness visible, one might almost 
say palpable, until some future sun sheds its rays upon it. 
Is this the manner of that God, " the entrance of whose 
word" into the mind, as the Psalmist affirms, " gives light 
and imparts understanding V* 

Many of the ancient Christian Fathers made it a promi- 
nent ground of distinction between heathen oracles and real 
prophecies, that the latter were uttered by men conscious 
and cognizant of what they were uttering, while the former 
were announced by (lavjtig, whose own declarations were 
often unintelligible to themselves. Is not this, now,a sug- 
gestion of good common sense ? Why should we suppose, 
that the prophets were bereft of consciousness and reason, 
at the very time when they were the subjects of inspiration 
and possessed a knowledge elevated above all which they 
had known before ? I cannot well conceive how any hon- 
our is to be done to revelation, by this way of explaining 
the inspiration of its authors. What can be the advan- 
tage which any one expects to be gained ? Prediction 
must be intelligible, or else it does not concern those to 
whom it is addressed. The alleged obscurity in prophecy, 
therefore, never cWld have originally existed. It is then, 
6 



62 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE ? 



and only then, that we can be led to suppose that it exists, 
viz., when we attribute to ancient times and disclosures all 
the views and information which the gospel-day has dis- 
closed to us. 

To the representations so often made, that the prophets 
were like to men not conscious either of their own appro- 
priate existence or of their own thoughts, and therefore 
were mere automata by means of which prophecy was ut- 
tered, I never can subscribe. To represent the prophets 
as being out of themselves, or as the mere strings of a lute 
which must be struck by another in order to render a sound, 
and when it does render one, is still not conscious either of 
so doing or of the quality of the sound — all this, although 
often said and repeated, is, in my apprehension at least, not 
only unscriptural but anti-scriptural. If the prophets were 
merely unconscious instruments ; if, as Hengstenburg af- 
firms, the spirit of man went out when the Spirit of God 
came in ; then what was it which made or enabled Jere- 
miah to refuse to prophesy, even when under strong pro- 
phetic influence (Jer. 20 : 9) ; and why should he need the 
most powerful constraint in order to lead him to perform 
this duty ? If men, when inspired, are mere automata or 
involuntary instruments, why does Paul so strongly cen- 
sure the Corinthians (chap, xiv.) for abusing their spiritual 
gifts? Above all, if they are mere unconscious instru- 
ments, how can that be true which the apostle says, when 
he declares, that " the spirits of the prophets are subject to 
the prophets?" 1 Cor. 14: 32. According to Paul, men 
are accountable for the manner in which they exercise the 
gift of prophecy. He taxes such of the Corinthian pro- 
phets as spoke in an unknown tongue without interpreting 
it, with great impropriety of conduct, and absolutely for- 
bids that they should do so any more. He enjoins that 
the unknown tongue should be interpreted ; or if there 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE? 



63 



should be no interpreter present, that silence should be pre- 
served. He says " he would rather speak five words with 
the understanding, [i e. which are intelligible], that by 
his voice he might teach others also, than ten thousand 
words in an unknown tongue ;" 1 Cor, 14 : 19. Why 
should this, the dictate both of common sense and of in- 
spiration, be so entirely forgotten or neglected, in the the- 
ories of many interpreters of prophecies, and of many who 
have descanted on the inspiration of the prophets ? It 
is as applicable to the Old Testament as to the New. It 
was as unworthy of God under the Mosaic dispensation, 
as under the gospel, to speak unintelligibly ; and it would 
seem as if nothing but the love of mystery, of something re- 
condite and strange, or reluctance at the labor of acquir- 
ing sufficient knowledge to explain prophecies, could ever 
have led men to introduce such paradoxes as I have been 
controverting, into the interpretation of the Scriptures. 

To conclude this topic : How can we then subscribe to 
the sentiment, that prophecy, when originally uttered, was 
not only obscure but unintelligible ? The men who utter- 
ed it were inspired ; and if so, did they not understand 
what they meant to say ? If they did, then have they not 
uttered their meaning in such a way that others can un- 
derstand them ? If all this be denied, then two conclu- 
sions inevitably follow ; the first, that no revelation was 
made, so far as the passages in question are concerned, to 
the prophets themselves ; for certain it is, that no revelation 
is made to any individual who can understand nothing of 
that which is communicated : the second, that others, who 
were addressed by the prophets, had in fact no revelation 
at all made to them ; for if inspired men did not understand 
the things that were uttered, surely uninspired ones could 
not understand them. Can any sober and reasonable man, 
now, bring himself to believe in such a state of things as 



64 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE ? 



this? Prophets speak in the name of God, and men are 
required to hear on penalty of death, and to give diligent 
heed to what is said. Yet, from the nature of the case, 
neither the prophet nor his hearers can obtain any correct 
view of what is said. The church is to wait for hundreds 
or thousands of years, before any true light dawns upon the 
darkness of the oracles. Fulfilment alone can diffuse this 
light. The treasure has been locked up, and withdrawn 
from the view of all ; and yet men were bound to believe, 
that it was a precious treasure, and would at some period 
or other be available for use. But no ; it never is truly 
available for any part of that purpose, in respect to which 
it professes to have been given. It was given as a predic- 
tion — given to foretell events that were to come. Yet it is 
no prediction ; for it never is, or can be, understood, until 
that to which it relates has already taken place. Then, if 
at last it be understood at all, it has become history, and is 
not, and never has been, prediction. 

Heathen gods and oracles, we might well suspect, would 
affect mystery and concealment in some such way. We 
know that this has been often done. But how shall we 
defend the idea, that the God of truth, " the entrance of 
whose word giveth light and understanding to the simple f* 
who has made " all Scripture profitable for doctrine, for 
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness " 
(2 Tim. 3 : 16) ; who has, by his prophets, uttered predic- 
tions which he declares to be " a light shining in a dark 
place" (2 Pet. 1: 19) ; — how shall we defend the notion, 
that he has uttered predictions to the ancient and to the 
later church, which neither patriarch, prophet, apostle, or 
martyr, could by any possibility understand ? Must we 
not rather say, with the great apostle to the Gentiles : 
" He that speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not 
unto men, but unto God?" 1 Cor. 14: 2. May we not, 



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE ? 



65 



must we not, insist with him, that " if the trumpet give an 
uncertain sound, no one can prepare himself for the bat- 
tle?" Is it not lawful to argue as he does, and say : " Ex- 
cept ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, 
how shall it be known what is spoken? For ye will speak 
into the air." 1 Cor. 14 : 7 — 9. Nay more : "If I know 
not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that 
speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a bar- 
barian to me." 1 Cor. 14 : 11. And what follows from all 
this, according to the judgment of Paul himself? The 
deduction is plain, simple, rational ; it is this, that " if 
there be no interpreter," the prophet, who was about to 
speak an unknown language to the church, ought to " keep 
silence." 1 Cor. 14 : 28. And yet after all this, which 
stands out in the full blaze of heaven's light, we are every 
day told by one class of interpreters, that the ancient pro- 
phets habitually practised the very things, which Paul first 
argues down and (I might say) satirizes, and then forbids. 

For myself, I hope to be forgiven, if I am slow to be- 
lieve in such a case. Why should we convert the an- 
cient prophets into " barbarians" and make them " speak 
into the air?" Why should we strive to show, that they 
bear a character like that of the heathen prognosticators, 
the [ivvTai and [lavxuql Can we suppose an omniscient 
God to resort to such expedients as these, merely in order 
to impress upon men the idea of his foreknowledge and of 
his unsearchableness ? Nothing but conscious short-sight- 
edness, and a feeling of inability to explain difficult passages 
of Scripture, would naturally conceal itself in this way. 
The thought of such mysterious and occult dealing is, at 
least in my view, incompatible with the character of him 
whose name is Light and Love, Yes ; " God is Light, and in 
him is no darkness at all." Nor can I believe, that there is 
a prophet or an apostle, from Enoch down to the evange- 
6* 



66 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



list John, who would not each instantly say, could they be 
summoned as witnesses in the present case : "I had rather 
speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice 
I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an 
unknown tongue." 1 Cor. 14 : 9. 

I will only add, that if any one will carefully peruse the 
books of Commentary on the Scriptures, and the Essays 
on the prophecies which are extant in our mother tongue, 
he will soon find that the double sense of Scripture, and 
particularly of Old Testament Scriptures which are sup- 
posed to contain predictions respecting Christ and the 
church, and the unintelligible nature of prophecies both in 
the Old Testament and the New respecting distant and 
future events, are made grounds of interpretation in cases 
almost without number and beyond credibility. It is time 
that this region of mysticism and imagination and fancy 
should be traversed. Let us not be overawed, like Ho- 
mer's Ulysses and Virgil's Eneas, when we get into the 
dusky domain of the Umbrae. No ; rather let us take in 
one hand the blazing torch of revelation, in the other that 
of reason, and advance boldly into the so-called darkest re- 
cesses of this imaginary nether world. We shall find, after 
all, that there is nothing there but Umbrae, with which we 
shall be obliged to contend. And with all the show that 
may be made of discontent at our coming, and of oppugna- 
tion to our advancement, by the dwellers in that region, 
the light of reason and revelation will sooner or later make 
them flee away, like the shadows of the night before the 
morning sun. 

§ 4. Designations of time in the prophecies. 

The endless discussions and difficulties that have arisen, 
in respect to these, must be familiarly known to every one 



IN THE PROPECIES. 



67 



who is acquainted with the interpretation of prophecy. 
Merely to recount the various methods of interpreting the 
designations of time, connected with the various modes of 
applying the prophecies which are consequent upon these 
interpretations, would occupy no inconsiderable volume. 
As it is no part of my design to exhaust the subject, 
I shall forbear in this case, as I have in the cases above, to 
bring before the reader any thing more of the views of others, 
than what may serve as a kind of basis for the question I 
intend to discuss. A polemic discussion which would have 
a mere private and individual bearing, is altogether remote 
from my design. 

In entering upon the consideration of the great and dif- 
ficult subject now proposed, I must beg leave to bring be- 
fore the reader's mind some of the plain and obvious prin- 
ciples of interpretation, which ought to be observed in the 
pursuit of such inquiries as the present. I speak of the 
subject as being a difficult one, rather because of the di- 
vision of opinion among critics, respecting it, and because 
of the difficulty of ascertaining historical facts in some 
cases that are related to the prophecies, than because I ap- 
prehend the subject to be in itself very difficult, when sim- 
ply considered without reference to any particular theory 
of interpretation. Once fully persuaded that the usual 
laws of language are to be applied to the designations of 
time in the prophetical books, our course is quite plain. 
If the periods designated are to be understood like other 
limitations of time in the Scriptures and in all other books, 
then we have merely to search for events which took place 
at the respective periods named, and see whether they ac- 
cord with the spirit, tenor, and design of the prophecy. 
When these events are disclosed, and their appropriateness 
exhibited, our work as interpreters is done. 

First of all, then, I would remind the reader of one of 



6S 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



the plainest and most cogent of all the rules of Hermeneu- 
tics. This is, that every passage of Scripture, or of any 
other book, is to be enterpreted as bearing its plain and 
primary and literal sense, unless good reason can be given 
why it should be tropically understood. 

A principle so plain and reasonable as this, scarcely 
needs any defence. The natural sense of all words is the 
original and literal one. The very phrase, tropical sense, 
ox figurative sense, shows that the natural meaning of words 
is to be laid aside. But to lay this aside, there must be 
good and substantial reasons. 

I have spoken of the original and literal sense of words 
as being the natural one. The original sense is that which 
the word was coined to convey ; and of course this is the 
natural sense. But many words often deflect from this, in 
some considerable measure, without bearing what is usual- 
ly called a tropical sense : e. g. y.gUco to judge, but also to 
condemn and to vindicate ; iz>S to perish, but also to ican- 
der, etc. It is thus that branches and limbs, as it were, 
spring out from the main trunk, which is the original 
meaning of the word ; yet these, however numerous, while 
they preserve merely the character of branches and limbs, 
are not employed in a way simply tropical. 

When we admit the tropical sense of a passage, ice do so 
because, if literally understood, the subject and predicate 
would not harmonize, or because a litcrcd sense would be 
frigid, unmeaning, or inappropriate. In such cases we 
assume the position, that the writer was guided by com- 
mon sense, and did not mean to say what would involve a 
contradiction or an absurdity, or what is frigid and inept. 
For example ; believing most fully that God is a spirit, 
and that he was regarded by the sacred writers as such, 
when we find such a sentence as the following, " God is 
our sun," we say the word sun must not be understood in 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



69 



its usual acceptation, but in a tropical sense. And why '? 
Because a spirit is not, and cannot be, a sensible, mate- 
rial, ever-varying, perishable object. We suppose the wri- 
ter to mean, in such a case, that God is to us what the sun 
is to the natural world. He imparts life and light, and 
diffuses his blessings every where and without cessation. 

In all cases where tropical language is employed by the 
sacred writers, it can be known by the application of some 
one of the principles which I have already mentioned. 
The judicious application of these, is what preeminently 
distinguishes one critic from another. Enthusiasts make 
shipwreck, when they launch upon the somewhat perilous 
ocean of figure and metaphor and allegory ; and it needs 
a cool head, and some dexterity in practice, to guide the 
ship on her right course and always keep her safe and in 
perfect trim. 

Without saying a word more upon this general subject, 
or upon the frequency of tropical language in the Scrip- 
tures, I would suggest, with special reference to the sub- 
ject before us, that of all the various ingredients of which 
language is composed, and which render it capable of a 
tropical use, the designations of time, space, and numbers, 
appear to be the least susceptible of being so employed. 
The rareness of such a usage in regard to time, all must 
admit, even those who give such a meaning to designations 
of time in the book of Daniel and of the Revelation. 
Compared with the number of instances in the whole Bi- 
ble, in which periods of time are named, and which (as all 
agree) must be literally interpreted, designations of this 
nature in the particular books just named, to which a tropi- 
cal or symbolical sense is assigned, are very few, even on 
the ground of those who advocate the symbolical sense. 
Perhaps we may find reason, in the sequel, to believe them 
to be much fewer than such interpreters would admit. 



70 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



One thing in respect to this whole matter seems to be 
very plain, viz., that if we do, in any case, give to a desig- 
nation of time an import different from its usual and natu- 
ral meaning, we must, in order to justify ourselves, be 
moved by substantial and cogent reasons to interpret in 
this manner. If no such reasons can be given ; if the 
plain and obvious sense fits both the passage in which a 
designation of time stands and the general aim of the wri- 
ter ; if facts can be pointed out which will accord with a 
prediction when literally understood ; and if a tropical or 
symbolical sense would be irrelevant, alien from the usual 
method of speaking, and in fact even against a usage which 
is nearly universal ; then we cannot in any way be justified, 
in giving to designated periods of time a secondary or tropi- 
cal sense. We are bound to interpret them in the simple 
manner in which they are presented to us. 

I must solicit the reader to weigh well the sentiments 
which are comprised in the preceding paragraph. If they 
are conceded to be correct, (and to me it does not seem 
that they can reasonably be called in question), then they 
must have a very important bearing on the interpretation 
of such parts of Daniel, and the Apocalypse, as have rela- 
tion to periods of time. 

It is of some importance, moreover, at this stage of our 
inquiry, to pass in review before us the general usage of 
the biblical writers in regard to numbers and designations 
of time. 

In respect to numbers ; we may say, that there is a lite- 
ral and a tropical sense of the words which designate them, 
in like manner as there is of a multitude of other words. 
We should not expect this, perhaps, if we reasoned about 
such a case in merely an a priori way ; but facts make the 
whole matter very plain. 

The literal sense of numbers needs no illustration. Ev- 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



71 



ery one spontaneously understands it. The tropical sense 
is also easily understood, but in this place it requires some 
illustration. 

In most, if not all, languages, usage has affixed to cer- 
tain numbers, ( differ ent ones, it may be, in different 
tongues), a kind of generic idea as to quantity, instead of 
the specific and definite idea which the number strictly in- 
terpreted would convey. For example : Peter asks his di- 
vine Master how often he ought to forgive the trespass of 
a brother; and in order to put the question, whether this 
should be done to any considerable extent, he throws it in- 
to the following form : " Shall I forgive him until seven 
times'?" Matt. 18: 21. The answer is: "Until seventy 
times seven." Now seven times here is not designed to be 
literally interpreted, for it expresses merely a considerable 
number of times. In like manner, seventy times seven is 
not to be literally interpreted, for here it plainly means an 
indefinite number of times, or at least very many times, 
L e. so many as would equal the number of offences what- 
ever that might be. 

In the same way a large number of passages of Scrip- 
ture are to be understood ; e.g. " In seven troubles no 
evil shall touch thee," Job 5 : 19. " Wisdom hath hewn 
out her seven pillars," Prov. 9:1. " Seven abominations 
are in the heart," [of a dissembler], Prov. 26 : 25. " The 
light of the sun shall be sevenfold," Is. 30 : 26. " A just 
man falleth seven times, and riseth again," Prov. 24 : 16. 
" Thou shalt go out before thine enemy one way, and flee 
seven ways," Deut. 28 : 7, 25. No sane interpreter would 
ever dream of construing these and the like passages of the 
Bible in a literal way. He spontaneously connects them 
with the idea of a considerable, but indefinite quantity. 
Of course he gives to the number seven, in such a case, a 
tropical sense. 



72 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



In like manner the number three is somewhat often em- 
ployed in the sacred writings ; and occasionally the number 
ten, forty , ^hundred, and especially a thousand. This last 
number is employed where a quantity of time, space, etc., 
is intended to be designated, which is exceedingly great, 
or immeasurably large. Thus the Psalmist : " A thou- 
sand years in thy sight are but as yesterday," Ps. 90 : 4. 
" One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thou- 
sand years as one day," 2 Pet. 3 : 8. 

In cases of this nature, scarcely ever does a doubt arise 
about the proper interpretation of the words designating 
number. When the context and the subject discussed show 
that it can be no special object with the writer to designate 
a definite and specific number, then the word employed to 
designate it is taken in a tropical sense; and, in general, 
cases of this nature are so plain that scarcely any reader 
misunderstands then. In a word ; the subject-matter of 
discussion, or of communication, determines and defines 
the nature of the affirmation respecting it. 

The original reason why some numbers were chosen in 
preference to others, and what that was in them which led 
to such a usus loquendi, would be a curious and interest- 
ing subject of inquiry. Bahr has cast some light on this, 
in his Symbolih; but my present design renders it imprac- 
ticable, even to advert to any specific reasons for the selec- 
tion of this or that number for tropical use. Enough for 
my purpose, that the fact of such a usage admits of no rea- 
sonable denial, nor even reasonable question. 

Nothing more need be said, at present, respecting the 
use of numbers in Scripture, unless it be, that occasionally 
there is a shade of tropical meaning somewhat different 
from that which has been already pointed out, and which 
might perhaps be named symbolical. Thus seven is often 
said to be the perfect number, i. e. it designates the gene- 



IN THE PROPECIES. 



73 



ral idea of completion or perfection. Thus in Is. xi. seven 
spirits are ascribed to the Messiah, i. e. he is to be fur- 
nished with such endowments as will render him a com- 
plete and perfect Saviour. In like manner the seven spi- 
rits of God, mentioned in Rev. 1 : 4, are interpreted by 
some highly respectable critics. And again, in Rev. 3:1, 
the Messiah, it is affirmed, " hath the seven Spirits of 
God which is also interpreted by many in the same man- 
ner as in Is. xi. In many other passages, also, the num- 
ber seven plainly denotes the idea of completion or sufficien- 
cy ; and when thus employed we may say, that it has a 
symbolical sense, i. e. it stands as a symbol for something 
which is not to be scanned by definite quantity, but by the 
relation which seven may bear to some idea of quality , 
i. e. completion, perfection. It matters not, for the inter- 
preter, whether seven in its own nature stands related to 
perfection ; enough that usage pre-supposes this, and em- 
ploys language accordingly. 

Besides the number seven, we may find not a few cases 
of the number three which are employed much in the same 
way, although it may lack something of the fulness and 
completion which the number seven more naturally desig- 
nates. 

But let the reader beware not to extend the tropical use 
of numbers to all and any numbers of every class. It 
would be a great mistake so to interpret the Scriptures. 
The usages of language confine the tropical meaning to a 
few leading and specially significant numbers, such as have 
been already designated. At least such is the usage of the 
Scriptures. The consequences of such a fact are of seri- 
ous import to the interpreter. The probability is, of 
course, that all numbers not belonging to that select and 
limited class, are to be literally interpreted. Indeed, it is 
a matter of course so to interpret them, and nothing but 
7 



74 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



the most cogent reasons, drawn from the context, can justi- 
fy any other interpretation. In fact, even those numbers, 
which are often employed in a tropical or symbolical way, 
are to be thus understood only when there is good reason 
to be found in the context, for supposing that the writer 
meant to employ them in this way. Any other method of 
interpreting the Scriptures would lead to the most arbitra- 
ry and extravagant conclusions. 

From the usage which has respect to numbers, we will 
now proceed to that which has respect to periods of time. 
Here also is a literal and a tropical usage. The first needs 
no explanation; the second may be illustrated in a few 
words. 

It is said of Jehovah : " Thy years shall not fail." Here 
the word years is not confined to periods of 360 or 365 
days, but means time indefinite, which is measured, so far 
as we reckon it, by years. So the word day and days are 
often employed in a generic sense. Thus : " In the latter 
day ;" " Thy days are numbered ;" " The day of the Lord ;" 
and other very frequent expressions of the like meaning. 
So is it also with the word hour. The sum of all is, that 
the specific designations of time, viz. day, days, year, 
years, etc., are often employed in the generic sense of 
time. In all such cases, synecdoche, i. e. a figure of speech 
where a part is taken for the whole, and vice versa, is to be 
found ; and no figure in rhetoric is more usual than this, 
in all languages whatever. 

Thus it is with the designations of time, when they stand 
in a simple state^ unconnected with numbers which limit 
them and render them specific. But very different is the 
case, when they stand connected ivith such limitations by 
numbers. The very fact that numerals are connected 
with them, is of itself a proof that the writer means to limit 
them. If there be any examples of a different usage, they 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



75 



can be only such as mark a period which may be symbolical, 
in like manner as we have seen the numbers seven, three, 
etc., sometimes to be symbolically employed. While we 
concede that there are examples of this nature, yet they 
are certainly very rare. A thousand years may be, in some 
passages, comprised among these examples ; and possibly 
seven years and three years may in some cases be supposed 
to belong here. But, as it seems to me, there is much rea- 
son to doubt of this last supposition. 

At all events, nothing but an imperious necessity can 
justify us in explaining years or days, when accompanied 
with definite numerals, in a tropical way, except the neces- 
sity of the case. If any good and appropriate sense can 
be made without resort to such an expedient, we are clear- 
ly bound, as interpreters, to abide by it 

Our way is now prepared to investigate the designations 
of time in Daniel and in the Apocalypse. And here the 
designations of time are, for the most part, accompanied 
by numerals ; and of course, unless some valid and satis- 
factory reason can be given for a different interpretation, 
they are to be considered as intended simply to mark the 
periods which they designate. No one, we may presume, 
will call in question a principle so plain, and so obviously 
the dictate of reason as this. 

Let us now make the supposition, that the times speci- 
fied in the book of Daniel and in the Apocalypse may all 
be understood according to their plain and obvious import, 
and that when thus understood they not only accord with 
the design of the writer, but are indispensable (in this 
mode of interpretation) to the object which he has in view ; 
is there any one who can reasonably call in question that ex- 
egesis, which interprets them agreeably to the common 
usages of language ? Apart from all preconceived and fa- 
vourite schemes of interpretation, where a particular end is 



76 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



to be accomplished by giving to numbers a symbolic sense, 
no considerate man would hesitate to subscribe to such a 
sentiment. It becomes then an imperious duty of the inter- 
preter to examine thoroughly the nature of the case before 
us, and see whether Daniel and John may not have em- 
ployed the designations of time, exhibited in their works, 
in the usual and ordinary manner. And if it should turn 
out, upon examination, to be matter of fact, that historical 
occurrences predicted by them accord with these designa- 
tions when interpreted in a simple and obvious way, who 
will venture to maintain with confidence, that any other 
interpretation than the obvious one is to be given to the 
periods in question ? I know indeed that there are some, 
who are apparently so attached to favorite methods of in- 
terpreting, that not even an argument of so plain and co- 
gent a nature will satisfy them. Among intelligent, consid- 
erate, and impartial men, however, I am persuaded that 
such an argument, if well supported, will find a patient 
hearing if not a welcome reception. 

The truth plainly is, that the public mind begins to grow 
weary of being tossed so long on a tempestuous sea of con- 
jecture, in regard to the meaning of Scripture. Men of 
inquiring minds wish to know what the Bible says, when 
interpreted by principles of exegesis which are stable, well 
grounded, and capable of an honest and open and intelligi- 
ble defence. There is no end of the arbitrary and the 
fanciful. When we are once cast upon such a sea, it is 
quite impossible to tell with certainty what harbour we 
shall ultimately make. Like the Corinthians who had 
every man his own interpretation, the arbitrary and fanciful 
interpreters of our own times scarcely ever agree ; and 
even if they do, whether the church derives any edification 
from their views of prophecy, is a serious question indeed. 
At all events, if a more sober, rational, and normal me- 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



77 



thod of interpretation can fairly be pointed out, sooner or 
later the public mind will approve of it and admit it. 

Enough has been said to show, that the plain and obvious 
interpretation of numbers in the prophecies is to be fol- 
lowed, unless there be cogent reasons for a departure from 
this rule. If there be indeed such reasons, we may then 
admit a tropical or symbolical sense ; for so much I most 
readily concede. But there are only two sources, so far as 
I can perceive, from which reasons of such a nature can be 
drawn. The first is, analogy in other parts of the Scrip- 
tures ; the second, the exigencies of the context. Let us pur- 
sue the examination of our subject, by inquiring how the 
matter before us stands in relation to each of these. 

First, analogy with other parts of Scripture. 

It is a singular fact, that the great mass of interpreters 
in the English and American world have, for many years, 
been wont to understand the days designated in Daniel 
and in the Apocalypse, as the representatives or symbols 
of years. I have found it difficult to trace the origin of this 
general, I might say, almost universal custom. Without 
venturing on a positive statement, I am inclined to believe 
that we may trace it mainly to the distinguished Joseph 
Mede, who lived and wrote during the first quarter of the 
seventeenth century. His Clavis Apocalyptica (Key to the 
Apocalypse) excited much attention when it was published, 
and indeed for a long time afterwards. Many criticisms 
were made upon it by the learned ; and in the explanation 
and defence of the positions which he had taken in that 
work, Mede wrote many comments, essays, and letters. 
The learning, piety, and (in general) the sobriety of mind, 
which this distinguished work exhibited, gave it great in- 
fluence in the religious community in England, and even- 
tually in America. Abroad, Vitringa and others attacked 
some of its leading positions, and, as was generally con- 
7* 



78 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



ceded, overthrew them. Still, the influence of this work 
on English commentary has been felt down to the present 
hour. Particularly is it so in regard to the subject of 
reckoning time ; the consideration of which is now be- 
fore us. 

Mede assumes the position, that the days in Daniel and 
in the Apocalypse are to be regarded as the symbols of 
years. In his Remains on some Passages in the Apoca- 
lypse, chap, ix., he goes at some length into a defence of 
this position. His chief reliance for aid to establish this 
position, is on the multiplicity and continuance of events 
which are predicted as standing in connection with the 
periods named. The amount of all is, that, in his view, 
such events must occupy more time than is assigned to 
them, if the natural and obvious meaning of the designa- 
tions of time should be admitted. He also appeals to Dan. 
9 : 24, as justifying his interpretation. 

The former reason will be touched upon, in its proper 
place. The latter plainly ranges itself under the question 
now before us. 

Since the time of Mede, interpreters have made addi- 
tions to the stock of such analogies as will help to support 
the interpretation which makes one day the symbol of a 
year. Our first business, then, is to examine these alleged 
analogies. 

I begin with those passages on which the most stress 
has apparently been laid, down to the present time. In 
Ezek. 4 : 5, 6, the prophet represents himself as having re- 
ceived a command to " lie upon his left side 390 days, in 
order that so he might bear the iniquity of the house of Is- 
rael ;" also to " lie upon his right side 40 days, in order 
to bear the iniquity of the house of Judah." It is then add- 
ed expressly by divine monition : "I have appointed each 
day for a year" i. e. each day was the symbol of a year, in 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



79 



regard to the duration of the time in which Israel and Ju- 
dah should be chastised. 

In respect to this account of the prophet's symbolic ac- 
tion, we may remark, first, that it would be absurd to sup- 
pose that the symbol should be of as long continuance as 
the thing symbolized. The symbolic actions were to be 
performed by one individual, and therefore could not con- 
tinue for 390 years, and after that for 40 years more. Of 
course, if Ezekiel were in person to exhibit the symbols 
enjoined, there was no feasible manner of doing this, ex- 
cept by making a short period the symbol of a long one, 
i. e. a day to symbolize a year. 

Whether the prophet actually performed the symbolic 
actions in question, or not, is of no consequence to the 
present discussion. The representation that such a symbol 
was to be exhibited, would convey the same instruction for 
substance to the Jews, as the acting of it all out. We could 
only say in the latter case, that the vividness of the repre- 
sentation would be augmented. But, 

Secondly, the prophet is expressly told, in this case, that 
one day is to be the symbol of a year. Why? Plainly 
because it would never enter the mind of himself or of any 
other man, that such could be the case, unless he were ex- 
pressly informed of it. What bearing then, in the way of 
analogy, does or can this have upon the designations of 
time in Daniel and in the Apocalypse ? Certainly none ; 
for in these books we have no information given of such a 
nature. The writers never once hint at such a mode of 
interpretation. What follows, then, except that we must 
interpret these books in the usual way 1 A special com- 
munication to Ezekiel was deemed necessary, in order to 
his understanding that days would or could be the symbols 
of years. Such a communication was in fact necessary; 
for nothing can be more natural to all men, than to inter- 



80 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



pret plain designations of time in the simple and usual 
way. To prevent Ezekiel from doing so, the symbolic 
significancy of days is a matter of express injunction. 
This of course constitutes a good and adequate reason, for 
adopting the symbolical meaning of the word day in the 
passage before us. 

But how is it with the designation of times in Daniel 
and in the Apocalypse, where no such injunction or ex- 
planation is given % There can be, as it seems to me, but 
one answer to this question ; which is, that those times are 
of course to be reckoned in the usual manner. Instead of 
being aided, then, by an appeal to Ezek. 4 : 5, 6, we find 
that a principle is in fact recognized there, which makes 
directly against the interpretation that we are calling in 
question. The express exception as to the usual mode of 
reckoning, which is there virtually made, goes, under such 
circumstances, directly to show that the general rule would 
necessitate us to adopt a different interpretation. 

The same principles apply to another passage in Num. 
xiv., to which appeal has more recently been made by 
some with great confidence. When Moses was approach- 
ing the land of Canaan, spies were sent out to go and 
search the country, and make report concerning it on their 
return. They were 40 days in executing this mission ; 
and when they returned, most of them gave in a bad re- 
port of the land, which occasioned great discontent and re- 
bellion in the camp of Israel. This was displeasing to 
God, and he declared that Israel should wander in the de- 
sert for 40 years, each year corresponding to one of the 40 
days during which the spies had been absent, Num. 14 : 
33, 34. 

Here now we perceive at once, that the whole is de- 
pendent on special divine appointment. Had the declara- 
tion been, that 1 Israel should wander in the desert accord- 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



81 



ing to the time in which the spies had been absent,' would 
any one have ever supposed that 40 years were meant ? 
It is conceded that they would not, in the very fact that 
express mention is made, that days are to stand as the 
symbols of years. Without a declaration of this import, 
no one would ever have surmised that the case was such. 
Now as neither Daniel nor the Apocalypse ever mentions 
such a mode of counting days for years, what else can we 
do, but follow the common laws of language in the inter- 
pretation of their predictions ? 

It should be noted, also, that both the cases above re- 
cited are dependent on and connected with the duration 
of symbolic and significant actions. These actions from 
their very nature must be of short continuance, in order 
to be a proper means of instruction for the generation then 
living ; but to reason from these to cases like those in 
Daniel and John, where no symbol of the nature in ques- 
tion is employed, must, as one would naturally suppose, be 
deemed very inconclusive and unsatisfactory by every con- 
siderate man. In Ezekiel and in Numbers, a short period 
of days in which certain actions are performed, is made 
the symbol of a long period in which a continued and im- 
portant series of actions and occurrences are to take place. 
But in the Apocalypse and in Daniel, there is merely one 
simple designation of time during which future events are 
to take place. 

Since then the instances in Ezekiel and in Numbers are 
plainly so dissimilar to those in the other books named, it 
is no wonder that Joseph Mede did not venture to appeal 
to them in support of his supposition. He has appealed, 
however, to Daniel 9 : 24 ; and as others have followed 
him in this appeal, it will be necessary briefly to examine 
this passage. 

Daniel had been meditating on the accomplishment of 



82 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



the 70 years of exile for the Jews which Jeremiah had pre- 
dicted • Jer. 25 : 12. 29 : 10. Dan. 9 : 1—3. At the close 
of the fervent supplication for his people which he makes, 
in connection with his meditation, Gabriel appears, and an- 
nounces to him that " Severity sevens are appointed for his 
people/' as it respects the time then future, in which va- 
rious and very important events are to take place. Our 
translation renders the words tWSDj tTSjri), seventy weeks. 
But throughout the Scriptures there is, if we except three 
instances in the book of Daniel, no such form as EFSOU) 
which means weeks. This is only and always tl^totS or 
nWittS. The form D^ir , therefore, which is a regular 
masculine plural, is no doubt purposely chosen to designate 
the plural of seven ; and with great propriety here, inas- 
much as there are many sevens which are to be joined to- 
gether in one common sum. The manner in which I have 
translated the word in question, therefore, gives an exact 
representation of the Hebrew original. Daniel had been 
meditating on the close of the 70 years of Hebrew exile, 
and the angel now discloses to him a new period of seventy 
times seven, in which still more important events are to take 
place. " Seventy sevens" or (to use Greek phraseology) 
" seventy heptades are determined upon thy people." Hep- 
tades of what ? Of days, or of years ? No one can doubt 
what the answer is. Daniel had been making diligent 
search respecting the 70 years ; and, in such a connection, 
nothing but seventy heptades of years could be reasonably 
supposed to be meant by the angel. But independently of 
this, the nature of the case is sufficient. Years are the 
measure of all considerable periods of time. When the an- 
gel speaks, then, in reference to certain events, and de- 
clares that they are to take place during seventy heptades, 
it is a matter of course to suppose him to mean years. If 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



83 



he had not meant so, then some word would have been add- 
ed in order to render it plain what his meaning was. 

And so it actually happens, in Dan. 10 : 2, 3, where he 
again employs the peculiar plural, D^tti . But as the pe- 
riod designated in the last passage has respect to a season 
of fasting which the prophet had kept, and as this could 
not be a period of three years, so the writer adds, after the 
words three sevens (in our version, three whole weeks), the 
word D^* 1 , days. He fasted " three sevens as to days" is 
a literal and grammatical version. This means, indeed, 
three whole weeks, as our version has it ; but the shape of 
the Hebrew expression is different from this. 

These examples render it quite plain, therefore, that 
when, in Dan. 9 : 24, the angel speaks of seventy heptades 
he must of course be. understood as meaning so many hep- 
tades of years=490 years. He has not made days at all 
the representative of years, in this case, but merely and 
simply designated the number of years. And as to chap. 
10 : 2, 3, surely no one will contend that Daniel fasted 
twenty-one years ; which must be the conclusion, however, 
if days are to be regarded as the representatives of years, in 
the writings of this prophet. But in 9 : 24, as has been 
said, days are not brought at all into question. The phra- 
seology employed (seventy heptades) is indeed elliptical ; 
yet it is not at all obscure, for every mind spontaneously 
supplies the word years, in such a connection. 

The appeal to Daniel, then, for an example of employing 
days for years, is certainly not well directed, when made 
to the passage in question. Indeed, the exact contrary of 
such a usage is manifest, when we read onward only six 
verses more ; for in 10 : 2, 3, the ground assumed would 
necessarily make Daniel to say, that he fasted in the most 
rigid manner for twenty-one years 1 The credibility of this, 
on any ground, needs not to be argued against. 



84 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



Thus much for analogies in the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures, that have respect to the modes of designating time. 
Not one of the cases that have been examined, (and these 
are all on which any reliance can be placed), answers at 
all the end for which an appeal is made, by the interpreters 
whose opinion is under examination. 

But I will not content myself, in this case, with the ex- 
amination of these alleged analogies. Another duty re- 
mains ; and this is, to produce examples of the contrary 
mode of reckoning; examples which show, that in prophe- 
cy, as elsewhere, the designations of time are to be under- 
stood in their natural and obvious sense, unless there is 
some direction or intimation that we must not interpret 
them in this manner. 

In Gen. 6 : 3, God announces that the days of men, be- 
fore the flood will come upon them, shall be 120 years. By 
the rule of one day for a year, this would amount to 43,920 
years ; in which case it is not so much to be wondered at, 
that the antediluvians were not moved by fear in conse- 
quence of Noah's threats. In Gen. 7: 4, God declares, 
that after seven days he will cause it to rain upon the earth 
forty days and forty nights. Is this then the same as say- 
ing, that after seven years it shall begin to rain, and then 
shall continue to do so for a period of forty years ? In 
Gen. 15 : 13, it is predicted that Abraham's posterity shall 
be bondmen in Egypt 400 years. Does this mean, that 
they shall live there in that capacity during 144,000 years ? 
Gen. 40 : 1 predicts seven years of plenty and seven of fa- 
mine to Egypt. Can this mean 2,520 years of each in 
succession? In Num. 14:33 it is declared, that Israel 
shall wander in the wilderness forty years. Does this mean 
14,400 years ? Does not history inform us what the exact 
and actual period was? In Ezek. 29: 11, 12, there is a 
threat of forty years' wasting to the Egyptians. Does this 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



85 



mean 14,400 ? In Jonah 3 : 4 it is declared, that Nineveh 
shall be overthrown within forty days ; in Is. 7 : 8 it is said, 
that Ephraim shall be broken within sixty-five years ; in 
Is. 16 : 14, that the glory of Moab shall be contemned with- 
in three years ; in Jer. 25 : 11. 29 : 10, the period of seven- 
ty years' exile is threatened ; and the like in other passa- 
ges of the prophets which need not be recited ; and yet 
we never once even dream of putting a day for a year in a 
single instance among all these cases. Why? Because we 
have no intimation that the passages are not to be inter- 
preted in the ordinary way ; and nothing in the context 
obliges us to think of a different mode of interpretation. 
Even so I trust it may prove to be, in cases yet to be ex- 
amined, and which constitute the basis of our present in- 
quiry. 

Nothing can be plainer, then, than that usage in the pro- 
phecies, as to designations of time, does not differ from or- 
dinary usage elsewhere. If there be any cases where a 
difference is to be made out, it must be on entirely other 
grounds than that of analogy. We have seen that the an- 
alogy asserted can by no means be established ; and there- 
fore we cannot appeal to it. We come then to examine, 

Secondly, whether the designations of time in Daniel 
and in the Apocalypse admit of a satisfactory solution on 
the common ground of grammatico-historical exegesis. 

We must begin with the book of Daniel, because, as all 
will concede, the Apocalypse has followed in many respects 
closely in the steps of this ancient prophet. And, which is 
more important still, Daniel has twice brought into view a 
famous period equivalent to years=42 months=1260 
days. If the use of this number of days is symbolical in 
the book of Revelation, then it must be conceded as pro- 
bable, that it is symbolical also in the book of Daniel ; and 
so, vice versa* At least the great mass of recent commen- 
8 



i 



86 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



tators in the English world, who suppose that the same 
things are predicted in both these books, cannot well avoid 
such a conclusion. It is proper, therefore, that we begin 
with the 1260 days or years in the book of Daniel. 

We do not find this period, indeed, specifically named. 
But it is virtually designated in the expression time, times, 
and the dividing (i. e. half) of time. In chap. 7: 25 (which 
is Chaldee), the main word is ftp ; in 12 : 7 (Hebrew), it is 
nspft. Both of these words are from the kindred roots 
and and mean, conformably to their etymology, a set, 
fixed, or appointed time. Of course this happily designates 
the year, the appointed and usual standard for the measure- 
ment of time. A time, times, and half a time, therefore, 
means one year, two years, and half a year=3J years=42 
months=nl260 days. This is the same period on which so 
much turns in Rev. xi. — xin. ; and one cannot well re- 
frain from believing, that the measure of time in both of 
these books is designed to be the same. 

What then is the actual time which is designated, in 
those several passages of Daniel that have been specifi- 
ed ? In order to answer this question we must first advert 
to the subject-matter of each prophecy, as developed by 
the context. 

The first passage, in Dan. 7 : 25, is so clear as to leave 
no room for reasonable doubt. In vs. 8, 20, 24, the rise of 
Antiochus Epiphanes is described ; for the fourth beast in 
7 : 7, 8, 11, 19 — 26, is, beyond all reasonable doubt, the di- 
vided Grecian dominion which succeeded the reign of Al- 
exander the Great. From this dynasty springs Antiochus, 
vs. 8, 24, who is most graphically described, in v. 25, as 
one who " shall speak great words against the most High, 
and shall wear out (destroy) the saints of the most High, 
and think to change times and laws ; and they shall be 
given into his hands, until a time, and times, and the divid- 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



87 



ing of time" The long, bitter, and bloody persecutions of 
Epiphanes ; his persevering efforts to abolish the Jewish 
ritual, and even to extinguish the religion which the He- 
brews professed, and destroy all copies of the holy Scrip- 
tures which were in their hands ; are too well known as 
historical facts, to need any comment here, or any specifi- 
cation.* The only question on which any thing needs to 

* A writer in one of the periodicals of the day, who is wont to 
speak with unusual confidence in regard to the meaning of many 
prophecies, quotes Dan. 7: 21, 22, as sufficient of itself to refute all 
that is said here, in respect to applying the verses specified above to 
Antiochus Epiphanes. The sum of these verses is, that " the little 
horn" (beyond all doubt Antiochus) " made war upon the saints 
and prevailed against them," and £ the Ancient of Days came, and 
rendered judgment to the saints' (vindicated the cause of the pious), 
* and restored to them the kingdom' which had been taken away by 
Antiochus. In other words : God appears as the vindicator of the 
pious and persecuted Jews, and restores to them the rightful do- 
minion of their country. This idea is thrice repeated in chap vn. ; 
first in the account of the vision as comprised in vs. 2 — 12, where 
vs. 9 — 11 are appropriated to designate the condemnation and pun- 
ishment of the little horn, " whose mouth speaketh great things ;" 
secondly, in vs. 21, 22, as already quoted ; and thirdly, in vs. 24 — 
26, which are a part of the explanations given by the angel. Now 
the writer in question, as many others have done, appears to have 
mistaken the judgment mentioned in vs. 10, 22, and the dominion 
given to the saints (v. 22), for the last judgment and millennial do- 
minion of the church. How palpably erroneous this is, may be 
seen by consulting Dan. 7 : 13, 14, where the later coming of the 
Son of Man, and the dominion which is given him, are plainly rep- 
resented as subsequent to the judgment and punishment of Antio- 
chus, as described in the preceding context. This decisive circum- 
stance, the writer in the periodical to whom I have adverted, in his 
haste and in his zeal for favorite opinions, seems to have wholly 
overlooked. One who feels as much confidence as he appears to 
possess, ought at least to look more carefully on what sort of ground 
he is treading. 

Whatever there is of obscurity or uncertainty in respect to the 



88 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



be said is : How does the result here described, viz. ' the 
giving up of the saints and times and laws into his hands/ 

fourth beast with his ten horns, as represented in chap, vn., it is 
made quite plain and palpable by chap. vm. In Dan. 8 : 8seq., the 
dominion of Alexander the Great, its division among his four chief- 
tains, and the rise of the little horn from one of these, are so plain 
as to be altogether undeniable. Then the characteristics of this 
" little horn," as given in chap vm. 9 — 12, are plainly the same 
for substance as those given in chap. vn. 8, 11, 20, 21, 24, 25. All 
is rendered still more certain, by the repetition of the same charac- 
teristics in 8 : 22 — 25, which, in connection with v. 21, shows very 
plainly, that the " little horn" and " the king of fierce countenance" 
is of Grecian descent, and rules over one of the four kingdoms into 
which the empire of Alexander was divided. 

All the real difficulty of the case arises from the fact, that the 
Messianic dominion described in 7: 13, 14 and again in 7: 27 is 
mentioned as if it were an immediate sequent of the destruction of 
the little horn or Antiochus. So far as the manner of the descrip- 
tion is concerned, one might judge this to be the case ; for no inter- 
val of time is designated, and none is necessarily implied by the use 
of appropriate particles. But in cases very numerous, both in the 
Old Testament and in the New, the manner of announcing the 
Messianic kingdom is the same. No inteival between it and ear- 
lier events is specifically designated. Yet nothing can be more er- 
roneous than the conclusion, that no interval of time, in such cases, 
is to be supposed. It is impossible not to allow such an interval. 
So here, no one could err more than to suppose, that the Messianic 
kingdom is to follow immediately after the destruction of the king- 
dom of Antiochus. The simple truth is, that the writer passes from 
one kingdom, restored to the ancient Jewish saints, to the descrip- 
tion of another and greater one still future. He makes no account 
of the interval of time, since he is not at all concerned, for his pre- 
sent purpose, with chronology. 

He who does not understand this common usage of the Hebrew 
prophets, must have made but little progress as it respects the study 
and the knowledge of them. He who does understand it, can find 
no serious difficulties in the case before us. 

For more ample remarks on the subject of this usage, in regard 
to the Messianic predictions, I must refer the reader to what is said 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



89 



accord with the time specified, provided the designation of 
this time be interpreted by the common laws of exegesis ? 

The facts are these. In the year 168 before Christ, 
(usually designated by B. C), in the month of May, Antio- 
chus Epiphanes was on his way to attack Egypt, and he 
detached Apollonius, one of his military confidants, with 
22,000 soldiers, in order to subdue and plunder Jerusalem. 
The mission was executed w T ith entire success. A terri- 
ble slaughter was made of the men at Jerusalem, and a 
large portion of the women and children, being made cap- 
tives, were sold and treated as slaves. The services of the 
temple were interrupted, and its joyful feasts were turned 
into mourning, 1 Mace. 1 : 37 — 39. Soon after this the 
Jews in general were compelled to eat swine's flesh, and to 
sacrifice to idols. In December of that same year, the 
temple was profaned by introducing the statue of Jupiter 
Olympius ; and on the 25th of that month, sacrifices were 
oftered to that idol on the altar of Jehovah. Just three 
years after this last event, viz. December 25th, 165 B. C, 
the temple was expurgated by Judas Maccabaeus, and the 
worship of Jehovah restored. Thus three years and a half, 
or almost exactly this period, passed away, while Antiochus 
had complete possession and control of every thing in and 
around Jerusalem and the temple. It may be noted, also, 
that just three years passed, from the time when the pro- 
fanation of the temple was carried to its greatest height, 
viz., by sacrificing to the statue of Jupiter Olympius upon 
the altar of Jehovah, down to the time when Judas renew- 
ed the regular worship. 

I mention this last circumstance in order to account for 
the three years of Antiochus' profanations, which are nam- 

near the close of this volume, in connection with the discussion re- 
specting Gog and Magog, and the events which will follow their 
development. 

8* 



90 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



ed as the period of them in Josephus, Antiq. XII. 7. § 6. 
This period tallies exactly with the time during which the 
profanation as consummated was carried on, if we reckon 
down to the period when the temple worship was restored 
by Judas Maccabaeus. But in Prooem. ad Bell. Jud. § 7, 
and Bell. Jud. I. 1. § 1, Josephus reckons 3J- years as the 
period during which Antiochus ravaged Jerusalem and Ju- 
dea. There is no contradiction in this writer, however, in 
case we refer each period to the occurrences which it was 
designed to mark. 

After all, we are not confined to his authority for the 
facts stated. The reader will find many authors referred 
to, in Usher's Annals, year 168 etseq. B. C. ; in Froelich's 
Annales Regum Syriae, chap, on Antioch. Epiphanes, 
(an admirable work); in Jahn's Hebrew Commonwealth, 
and in Prideaux's Connection, etc., under the appropriate 
head in each. To save time and to avoid repetition, I 
refer the reader to these sources of information, and to 
the ancient histories cited in them ; most of which may 
be procured with little trouble, and also are of easy ac- 
cess. And in like manner, to save repetition, would I 
here make a reference to the same sources, as to subse- 
quent historical facts which will be stated in the course of 
this investigation respecting the book of Daniel. 

No one can reasonably expect, then, a more exact fulfil- 
ment of the time specified in Dan 7 : 2o, than that which 
history here presents. 

Another passage, parallel to Dan. 7 : 25 which we have 
just examined, is Dan. 12 : 7, where the same limitation of 
time occurs, and in connection (for this I cannot doubt) 
with the same individual, i. e. with Antiochus Epiphanes. 
As in many other cases, particularly in Isaiah and Daniel, 
an unfortunate division has been made by chapters which 
greatly obscures the sense of the original Scripture, so 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



91 



here there is an instance of the like mistake, which is 
much to be regretted. It is quite plain that Dan. xi. and 
xn. are closely and inseparably connected, as one contin- 
ued series of predictions, closing with some inquiries and 
answers, the object of which is to throw light on those pre- 
dictions. That Antiochus Epiphanes is described in 11 : 
21 — 45, is past all question. The graphic historical cor- 
rectness and minuteness of the description here, is even 
such as can be found no where else in the whole Bible. 
Porphyry, in the latter part of the third century, charged 
this composition with being a prophecy post eventum ; 
and it must be acknowleged that it is difficult, at the 
present time, when one compares other prophecies, not to 
feel moved in some measure to entertain a similar view. 
The reason is, that, in point of minuteness and exactness 
of specification, nothing elsewhere in the whole Scripture 
can be found to compare with it ; so exactly, and at so 
great length, does it give the history of Antiochus. 

That the beginning of chap. xn. is only a continuation 
of the angel's address to Daniel, is plain from a mere glance. 
This address ends with v. 4 ; and then commences a col- 
loquy between two angels, designed to cast further light 
on what had been said. One angel inquires of the other : 

How long shall it be to the end of these wonders V } v. 6. 
The answer, introduced by an appeal to Heaven for con- 
firmation of its truth, is, that " it shall be for a time, and 
times, and a half; and when he shall have entirely com- 
pleted the dashing in pieces (y"B2 ) of the power of the holy 
people, all these things shall be accomplished." That is, 
the time when Antiochus will cease from persecuting the 
Jews and profaning the temple, or the end of the wonder- 
ful things that have been foretold, will be years from 
the commencement of his most violent course ; and when 
he shall have been destroyed and his power over the Jews 



92 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



shall have come to an end, then will have been fulfilled 
the things of which the angel had been giving information 
to Daniel. In other words ; Dan. 12 : 7 marks the ter- 
minus ad quern of the predictions which immediately pre- 
cede it. And that the dashing in pieces, i. e. utterly de- 
stroying or suppressing the power of the Jews, is to be re- 
ferred altogether to Antiochus, no one who reads Dan. 7 : 
25, and 11 : 21 — 45, and makes comparison of them with 
the annunciation here, can well doubt. Verses 30 — 35 of 
chap. xi. show fully what is meant in 12 : 7, by dashing in 
pieces the power of the holy people ; and the whole shows 
that the outrages of Antiochus, i. e. his final and most bit- 
ter persecution of the Jews, with their complete subjuga- 
tion, is designed to be characterized here. And this, as 
we have already seen, p. 89 above, lasted for a period of 
3 J years. 

We see, then, an entire coincidence of manner and mat- 
ter between Dan. 7 : 25 and 12 : 7. The same time is 
designated by both in the same way, and the same person 
and same events are referred to in both. Of course we do 
not need a re-investigation here of facts in the history of 
Antiochus. The correspondence of prediction and history 
is even so striking, that none can refuse to perceive it. 
The only difficult question that will arise here for the inter- 
preter, is : Whether 12 : 1 — 3 is to be interpreted so as to 
refer it to the troubles which Judea experienced shortly be- 
fore the great victory under Judas Maccabaeus which end- 
ed in the restoration of liberty to the Hebrews, and also 
to the blessings consequent on their renewed liberty, thus 
making it parallel with Ezek. 37 : 1 — 14 ; or whether the 
short passage here interposed looks forward to the more 
distant future — the Messianic period and final resurrection. 
Into this question I cannot enter here ; nor is it important 
to the object which I have in view. The passage in 12 : 7, 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



93 



undoubtedly refers to the leading and prominent part of the 
prophecy which precedes ; and this plainly has respect to 
Antiochus. 

I am aware that some have found a vnovoia in 7 : 25, 
and also in 12 : 7 ; i. e. they have interpreted both pas- 
sages as having reference to Antichrist in their secondary 
sense, or to the beast which is described in Rev. xm. and 
the sequel. But how this can be brought about, in the 
present case, I do not perceive. In regard to the passages 
in Daniel, so far as they respect Antiochus, no more than 
3J years literally understood can possibly be meant. The 
utter absurdity of supposing Daniel to predict, that An- 
tiochus himself in person should persecute the Jews for 
1260 years, needs no exposure. But how 3 \ literal years 
can be meant in the type, (as they speak), and yet this 
same identical period amount to 1260 years in the anti* 
type, i. e. Antichrist, is a problem in exegesis, that has yet 
received no solution, and surely admits of no satisfactory 
one. The bare statement of the whole matter is a com- 
plete refutation of the exegesis put upon the passages in 
question. 

I have only one more remark to make, before I proceed 
to the examination of other passages. This is, that the 
reader should well note here the general nature of the limi- 
tation of time. It is not specifically designated by years, 
or months, or days, but it is expressed in general language, 
viz., " time, times, and a half" The very manner of the 
expression indicates, of course, that it was not the design 
of the speaker or writer to be exact to a day or an hour. 
A little more or a little less than 3J years would, as every 
reasonable interpreter must acknowledge, accord perfectly 
well with the general designation here, where plainly the 
aim is not statistical exactness, but a mere general charac- 
terizing of the period in question. We shall see reason to 



94 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



believe, in the sequel, that some 30 days more than exact- 
ly 3J prophetic years were occupied by the disastrous oc- 
currences under the reign of Antiochus ; for in another 
passage, where the exact period is probably intended to be 
marked, the number of days is specifically given. 

As this exact period stands particularly related to the 
general designation of 3J years, which we have already 
considered, it will facilitate our inquiries to take the exact 
designation next into consideration. In Dan. 12 : 11 it is 
said : " From the time that the daily sacrifice shall be ta- 
ken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set 
up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days" 
This period exceeds the 1260 days by one month or thir- 
ty days. 

That the same persecuting power is adverted to here, as 
in Dan. 7 : 25. 11 : 30 — 35, and 12 : 7, no one, I appre- 
hend, will doubt, who well considers the language. Anti- 
ochus " took away the daily sacrifice," as is here declared. 
This was in the latter part of May, B. C. 168. Profane 
history does not indeed give us the day ; but it designates 
the year and the season. As we have already seen, about 
3J years elapsed, after the temple worship was entirely 
broken up, before Judas Maccabaeus expurgated the tem- 
ple and restored its rites. This terminus ad quern is not 
mentioned in the verse now before us ; but still, it is plain- 
ly implied. The end of the 1290 days must of course be 
marked by some signal event, just as the commencement 
of them is so marked. And as the suppression of the tem- 
ple-rites constitutes the definitive mark of the commence- 
ment, so it would seem plain, that the restoration of the 
same rites must mark the conclusion of the period which is 
designated. The " time of the end," i. e. the period at the 
close of which the persecutions of Antiochus would cease, 
is distinctly adverted to in 7 : 25. 11: 30 — 35, and 12 ; 7 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



95 



The nature of the case, in the verse before us, shows that 
the same period is tacitly referred to in the words of 
the speaker. 

It is needless, therefore, to repeat here what has already 
been set before the reader, viz. the history of the invasion 
and profanation of the temple by Antiochus. No doubt 
remains, that his march from Antioch to Egypt, for hostile 
purposes, was in the Spring of the year 168 B. C. He 
was delayed for some time on this march, by ambassadors 
from Egypt who met him in Coelo-syria. Very naturally 
therefore we may conclude, that he arrived opposite Jeru- 
salem in the latter part of May, and that there and then he 
commissioned Apollonius to rifle and profane the temple. 
The exact time from the period when this was done, down 
to the time of expurgation, seems to have been, and is de- 
signated as being, 1290 days. In other words ; here is an 
exact specification of what was before designated in general 
terms, in Dan. 7 : 25 and 12 : 7, i. e. by the words " time, 
times, and an half." 

Immediately connected with the passage last examined, 
and standing in immediate succession, is another passage 
in Dan. 12: 12, which runs thus : "Blessed is he that waiteth, 
and cometh to the one thousand three hundred and thirty- 
jive days." The place which this passage occupies, shows 
that the terminus a quo, or period from which the days de- 
signated are to be reckoned, is the same as that to which 
reference is made in the preceding verse. This, as we 
have already seen, is the period when Antiochus, by his 
military agent Apollonius, took possession of Jerusalem 
and put a stop to the temple-worship there. The author 
of the first book of Maccabees, who is allowed by all to 
deserve credit as a historian, after describing the capture 
of Jerusalem by the agent of Antiochus, (in the year 145 
of the era of the Seleucidae=168 B. C), and setting be- 



96 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



fore the reader the wide-spread devastation which ensued, 
adds, respecting the invaders : " They shed innocent blood 
around the sanctuary, and defiled the holy place ; and the 
inhabitants of Jerusalem fled away; .... the sanctuary 
thereof was made desolate ; her feasts were turned into 
mourning, her sabbaths into a reproach, and her honour 
into disgrace 1 Mace. 1 : 37 — 39. To the period when 
this state of things commenced we must look, then, in order 
to find the date from which the 1335 days are to be reck- 
oned. Supposing now that Apollonius captured Jerusa- 
lem in the latter part of May, B. C. 168, the 1335 days 
would expire about the middle of Feb. in the year B. C. 
164. Did any event take place at this period, which would 
naturally call forth the congratulations of the prophet, as 
addressed in the text before us to the Jewish people ? 

History enables us readily to answer this question. 
Late in the year 165 B. C, or at least very early in the 
year 164 B. C, Antiochus Epiphanes, learning that there 
were insurrections and great disturbances in Armenia and 
Persia, hastened thither with a portion of his armies, while 
the other portion was commissioned against Palestine. He 
was victorious for a time ; but being led by cupidity to 
seek for the treasures that were laid up in the temple of 
the Persian Diana at Elymais, he undertook to rifle them. 
The inhabitants of the place, however, rose en masse and 
drove him out of the city ; after which he fled to Ecba- 
tana. There he heard of the total discomfiture by Judas 
Maccabaeus of his troops in Palestine, which were led on 
by Nicanor and Timotheus. In the rage occasioned by 
this disappointment, he uttered the most horrid blasphe- 
mies against the God of the Jews, and threatened to make 
Jerusalem the burying-place of the nation. Immediately 
he directed his course toward Judea ; and designing to 
pass through Babylon, he made all possible haste in his 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



97 



journey. In the mean time he had a fall from his chariot, 
which injured him ; and soon after, being seized with a 
mortal sickness in his bowels, (probably the cholera), he 
died at Tabae, in the mountainous country, near the con- 
fines of Babylonia and Persia. Report stated, even in an- 
cient times, that Antiochus was greatly distressed on his 
death-bed by the sacrileges which he had committed. 

Thus perished the most bitter and bloody enemy which 
ever rose up against the Jewish nation and their worship. 
By following the series of events it is easy to see, that his 
death took place sometime in February of the year 164 
B. C. Assuming that the commencement or terminus a 
quo of the 1335 days is the same as that of the 1290 days 
(noted on p. 89 et seq.), it is plain that they terminate 
at the period when the death of Antiochus is said to have 
taken place. " It was long before the commencement of 
the Spring," says Froelich in his excellent work before 
quoted, " that Antiochus passed the Euphrates and made 
his attack upon Elymais" (p. 52) ; so that no more proba- 
ble time can be fixed upon for his death than at the expira- 
tion of the 1335 days, i. e. some time in February of 164 
B. C. No wonder that the angel pronounced those of the 
pious and believing Jews to be blessed, who lived to see 
such a day of deliverance. The great enemy of their na- 
tion and their God had fallen ; Judas Maccabaeus had be- 
| come every where victorious ; the sanctuary was now clean- 
sed of its pollution, and pure worship was restored ; the 
Hebrews, moreover, had every prospect of independence 
and happiness. In fact, their own kings reigned over them 
for a long time after this ; so that the death of Antiochus 
was a most important means of securing both civil and re- 
ligious liberty. 

How perfectly natural such an explanation is, and how 
consonant with the spirit of the Hebrews, on like occa- 
9 



m 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



sions, any one may see who will consult Isaiah and John, 
When the king of Babylon, the great enemy of the Jews, 
falls, " the whole earth breaks forth into singing, the fir 
trees and the cedars of Lebanon exult over him, Is. 14 : 7. 
8. When spiritual Babylon, i. e. persecuting Rome, falls, 
John calls upon u heaven and holy apostles and prophets 
to rejoice over her, because God has avenged them on her/'' 
Rev. 19: '20. Can it be any matter of wonder, then, that 
Daniel congratulates those who should survive Antiochus 
Epiphanes, and calls them blessed, i. e. happy, when they 
shall have lived to see the day in which liberty and peace, 
civil and religious, are once more secure from the assaults 
of such an unrelenting tyrant 2 

One, and only one, more period in the book of Daniel 
claims our present attention. This is in chap. vm. 14. In 
the vision seen by Daniel, as related in this chapter, one 
angel inquires of another, ' How long the sanctuary and 
the host are given to be trodden under foot,' v. 13. The 
answer is : " To two thousand three hundred days ; then 
shall the sanctuary be cleansed," v. 14. 

The time itself here designated has been matter of con- 
troversy ; and consequently, the subject needs some re- 
marks. 

The words in our version : Unto two thousand and three 
hundred days, are, in the original Hebrew, expressed in 
this manner : " Unto evening-morning two thousand three 
hundred."' The doubt has fallen upon nn". evening- 
morning ; for some have understood it as meaning the 
evening and morning , L e. the constant sacrifice of- 
fered morning and evening, in such a way that each of 
these is to be separately included in the number 2300 ; so 
that, in fact, only 1150 days are in reality designated, 
What increases the difficulty of deciding is, that exactly 
such a phraseology no where else occurs in the holy Scrip- 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



99 



lures. Yet there are cases which bear some analogy to 
this, in the Hebrew ; there is a very close analogy also to 
this mode of expression in the Greek ; and the nature of 
the events described in the context may help us, moreover, 
to form some proper opinion in respect to the meaning of 
the peculiar phrase before us. 

Nothing is more common in Hebrew, than the repeti- 
tion of the same word, either in order to denote intensity 
of number, power, quality, etc. ; or else to denote distri- 
bution. As specimens of the first kind, the reader may 
consult Gen. 14 : 10. Ex. 8 : 13. 2 K. 3 : 16. Joel 4: 14; 
of the second, Gen. 32 : 17. Num. 17: 17. Ezek. 24 : 6. 
Gen. 7 : 9. But these usages do not bear directly on our 
present difficulty.; for Iph presents us with two dif- 
ferent words ; which moreover are without any conjunc- 
tion between them. On this latter circumstance stress 
has been laid by some critics, who aver that distribution 
is meant to be designated by the form of expression (with- 
out 1 conjunction), so that in reality only half the num- 
ber of days, = 1150, is meant. But on the circumstance 
that the Vav conjunction is omitted, it would seem that 
stress of this kind cannot well be laid. In cases where 
the repetition of the same noun denotes the conjunct idea 
of all, each, every, e. g. n£*3 SiSttj each year or every year, 
sometimes the Vav is omitted, and sometimes it is insert- 
ed ; for examples of omission, see Deut. 14 : 22. 2 K. 17 : 
29. 1 Chron. 9 : 32. Num. 9:10; yet Vav is inserted in 
Ezra 10 : 14. Ps. 87 : 5. Esth. 3 : 4. Deut. 32 : 7, and 
many other cases, without any seeming difference of sense. 
If any thing is to be argued from the omission of the 
copula, it would seem to be, that the two words, thus 
brought together, are to be considered as a kind of com- 
pound word. So Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 519. Indeed it 
would be quite natural here, in case the writer did design 



100 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



that the two words should be separately considered, so that 
each of them should be reckoned as a constituent part of 
the 2300, to put a Vav between them. Thus where abso- 
lute severalty is intended between nouns repeated, the 
copula Vav is always inserted ; e. g. Deut. 25 : 13. Ps. 12 : 
3. So where the two words nj^s and nns come together, 
and each is designed to be separately considered or count- 
ed, the copula is put between ; e. g. in 1 Chron. 16 : 40. 
2 Chron. 2 : 3. 31 : 3. Ezra 3 : 3. Jerome says, that, in 
the case before us, " vespere et mane successionem diei 
noctisque significat," i. e. evening and morning signifies 
the succession of day and night. Indeed the whole seems 
plain, when referred to Gen. i., where tpc evening and the 
morning constitute one day, Gen. 1 : 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31. 
That the writer had the usage in his mind which these 
last cited passages develope, seems plain from the order in 
which he has placed the words, viz. by making evening to 
precede morning, because it began the day among the He- 
brews. And in the same manner the Greeks put the two 
parts of the day together, in their vv/dr^usgov (see 2 Cor. 
11 : 25), in order fully and emphatically to designate one 
complete day. That this is the simple object of the ex- 
pression now under examination, I cannot well doubt; 
The principal support of those who regard the 2300 as de- 
signating the offerings of the morning and the evening, 
and so as marking only 1150 whole days, is derived from 
the supposition that V^n is necessarily implied before the 
expression np z Sn? . Yet in v. 26 such an addition is 
neither made, nor is admissible before these words. On the 
whole, then, we must consider these 2300 evening-morn- 
ings as an expression of simple time, i. e. of so many days, 
reckoned in the Hebrew manner. So Gesenius, Rosen- 
mueller, Havernick, and others. 

The termination or terminus ad quern of these is given 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



101 



in the closing phrase : Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. 
The original Hebrew here, fcHj? p*p??1 , might afford room 
for some doubt as to the true meaning. The word ifinp, 
rendered sanctuary, has no article, (we should naturally 
expect one if it has this meaning) ; and the verb ap- 
propriately means to justify. But this verb also means to 
put right, to restore, viz. that which is in a defective or 
wrong state ; and so it may not unnaturally be employed 
here, to designate the restoration of the temple or sanctuary 
to its proper state or condition. This was done by Judas 
Maccabaeus, as we have seen above, on the 25th of Dec. 
165 B. C. Counting back from this as the terminus ad 
quern of the 2300 days, we come to Aug. 5th of the year 
171 B. C. What are the events of this year, then, which 
correspond to that which is said to be done from and after 
the commencement of the period in question ? . 

In vs. 9 — 12 of the context, we are informed of what 
was to be done. " The little horn," i. e. Antiochus Epi- 
phanes, " waxed great, and magnified itself," i. e. extended 
itself, " to the host of heaven, and cast down to the ground 
some of the host, even of the stars, and trampled upon them. 
Even to the prince of the host did it magnify itself, and by 
it was the daily sacrifice removed, and the dwelling place 
of the sanctuary was cast down/' Here, it will be per- 
ceived, the aggressions of Antiochus commenced with his 
attack upon the priests of the temple, called the host of 
heaven, but specifically upon the high priest, who is called 
the prince of the host. These are the leading facts which 
characterize the doings of Antiochus, from and after the 
beginning of the 2300 days. The profanation of the tem- 
ple and the taking away of the daily sacrifice follow on, 
very naturally, in the sequel. Does history present us with 
any thing that happened in the year 171 B. C, which cor- 
responds with this representation in Daniel ? 
9* 



102 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



Menelaus had, by his artifices and by bribery, obtained 
a nomination to be high-priest in the room of his excellent 
elder brother, Onias III. Antiochus Epiphanes had pro- 
mised this office to Menelaus, and he expected a large sum 
of money for bestowing it. But Menelaus, having obtain- 
ed it, was tardy in the payment of the stipulated sum, and 
was summoned before Antiochus in order to answer for his 
delay. At his departure he substituted Lysimachus in his 
place ad interim ; who, being urged by Antiochus and 
Menelaus, rifled the temple of its golden vessels, and sold 
them in order to pay the tribute exacted. Menelaus him- 
self was kept in his office by Antiochus, merely because he 
had promised the king still larger sums of money in the 
way of tribute. In the mean time, Onias III., the elder 
brother and lawful high-priest, sternly rebuked Menelaus 
for his sacrilege ; and soon after, at the instigation of the 
same Menelaus, Onias was allured from his retreat at 
Daphne, whither he had fled for safety after rebuking his 
brother, and was murdered by Andronicus, the vice-gerent 
of Antiochus who had gone to suppress a rebellion in Cili- 
cia. The Jews at Jerusalem, being highly offended with 
the profanation of the temple and the sacrilege of Lysi- 
machus who acted under the orders of Antiochus, rose in 
rebellion against Lysimachus and the Syrian forces who 
protected him, and cut off both this fraudulent administra- 
tor himself and the guards by which he was surrounded. 
Well might the prophet say then of the Syrian power or 
little horn, that it magnified itself against the prince of the 
host. 

Here commenced a series of aggressions upon the priest- 
hood and temple and city of the Jews, which, with occa- 
sional interruptions, continued down to the death of Anti- 
ochus, as before described. The difference, however, be- 
tween this period of 2300 days and the other periods, (viz., 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



103 



"time, times, and half a time"=1260 days, the 1290 days, 
and the 1335 days), is very plain and striking. There 
were during the latter three periods (excepting at the very 
close of the last), no interruptions of the tyrannical and 
overbearing power of Antiochus. But any one who follows 
closely the history of the whole 2300 days, will see that 
frequent and somewhat long continued interruptions of ac- 
tive oppression took place, during the former half of this 
period. It is evidently the design of the writer, in Dan. 
viii., to characterize the ivhole of the violent interpositions 
and assaults of Antiochus ; and so he extends back his de- 
scriptions to a period which embraces the whole of his ac- 
tual and grievous oppression. The tyrannical procedure, 
begun (as we have seen) in the latter half of the year 171 
B. C, was occasionally continued by the murder of the Jew- 
ish ambassadors at Tyre in 170; by the subsequent slaugh- 
ter and captivity of 80,000 Hebrews in the same year, and 
also by the profanation and rifling of the temple. In the 
year 169, Antiochus was wholly occupied with his war 
upon Egypt ; but in 168 B. C. Apollonius, by order of 
Antiochus, took possession of Jerusalem and the temple, 
after which, for 3J years, was an entire and continued sus- 
pension of sacred rites and holy feasts. 

Thus we find, upon due examination of ancient history, 
that all the times, thus far specified in the book of Daniel, 
may be easily and naturally interpreted according to their 
plain and obvious sense. And inasmuch as the writer has 
not given us the least intimation that they are to be other- 
wise interpreted, what can be plainer in hermeneutics, 
than that the obvious sense of the words which designate 
time is to be followed ? If this principle be not reasonable 
and certain, I know not where to find one within the whole 
circle of exegesis which is. 

Only one period more is named in the book of Daniel, 



104 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



viz., the so-called seventy weeks in Dan. 9 : 24 — 27. It 
would occupy too great a portion of the present disquisition, 
to go into a minute investigation of this passage. Indeed, 
it would require a volume of considerable magnitude, even 
to give a history of the ever varying and contradictory opin- 
ions of critics respecting this locus vexatissimus ; and per- 
haps a still larger one, to establish an exegesis which would 
stand. I am fully of opinion, that no interpretation as yet 
published will stand the test of thorough grammatico-his- 
torical criticism; and that a candid and searching and 
thorough critique here is still a desideratum. May some 
expositor fully adequate to the task, speedily appear ! In 
the mean while it may be truly said, that the time specified 
here is wholly unlike to any thing in the Apocalypse, and 
therefore it can have no distinct bearing upon the present 
discussion. All that is necessary to be said now concern- 
ing this passage, has already been said in the preceding 
pages (p. 82 seq.) ; and to these I must refer the reader. 

Before we take leave, however, of the book of Daniel, 
to which appeal is so often and confidently made by inter- 
preters who make 1260 days in the Apocalypse to stand 
for so many years, we must advert to the references made 
to the prophet in two of the Gospels, by which, it is said, 
an occult or secondary sense is attributed to some passages 
of his writings, which have already been explained above 
as having reference only to Antiochus Epiphanes. 

The passages in question are in Matt. 24 : 15 and Mark 
13 : 14. The first runs thus : " When ye shall see the 
abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel 
the prophet, standing in the holy place, (let him who read- 
eth consider !) then let those who are in Judea flee to the 
mountains, etc." The second is of the like tenor : " When 
ye shall see the abomination of desolation, [spoken of by 
Daniel the prophet], standing where it ought not, (let him 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



105 



who readeth consider!) then let those who are in Judea 
flee to the mountains, etc." In this last passage from 
Mark, the clause included in brackets is marked as of a 
suspicious character by Knapp, and is given up in the 
main by most recent critics. Even Hengstenberg, in his 
efforts to show that the prophecy of Daniel is applied in a 
direct way, by the Saviour, to the destruction of Jerusalem 
by the Romans, still gives up the suspected clause in Mark ; 
pp. 258, 267, of his Aechtlieit des Daniel. But with me, 
the omission of the suspected clause in Mark makes no im- 
portant difference. All the copies of Matthew exhibit the 
reading in question ; and the testimony of one Evangelist 
should be enough, for any one who believes in the divine 
inspiration of the Gospels. 

The simple question before us is : Whether the Saviour 
has applied the prediction in Daniel respecting the y^JpU} 
UTyrift {abomination of desolation) to the Romans, and thus 
shown that we are not to apply it, or at least not to apply 
it exclusively, to Antiochus Epiphanes ? 

There are three passages in Daniel, where the phraseol- 
ogy in question, or nearly the same, is employed. These 
are Dan. 11 : 31. 12 : 11, and 9 : 27. Hengstenburg him- 
self gives up the two former, as being applicable, and as al- 
ways having been applied in ancient times, to Antiochus. 
Indeed the case is so plain, that no one can safely venture 
on denying it. He strives however, with much earnest- 
ness, to show that the phrase in Dan. 9 : 27 is that which 
the Saviour quotes and applies to the Romans. But of 
this many doubts might be raised. The form of the He- 
brew here serves of itself to excite some doubt. It runs 
thus: DTpjazs tr^JpiB P) 33 b?, which in the Septuagint is 
rendered (and also by Theodotion) : 3 Enl to Isgbv fidiXv/fjia 
twj> igrjpoHjsbJv, evidently showing a different reading of 
the ancient Hebrew text, or else a palpable mistake of 



106 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



the translator. It can hardly be supposed that Matthew 
and Mark, or that the Saviour, borrowed the simple expres- 
sion (tdiivy/ia e o r^u coat wg from such an almost senseless 
version as that of the Seventy which is given above. In the 
Hebrew just quoted, tP3Sftj£ IE) is not in regimen or the con- 
struct state ; nor does D5DA253G assume the article, which, as 
being specific, it would naturally do here if it were in the 
Genitive. Every thing which respects the form, manner, 
and (as I must believe) object, of the Hebrew phrase here, 
forbids us to suppose that Matt. 24 : 15 and Mark 13: 14 
are built upon it. Indeed if they are, the original applica- 
tion of Dan. 9 : 27 to the Romans might still be called in 
question. The contents of the verse seem almost irresisti- 
bly to remind us of Antiochus, as described in Dan. 7 : 25. 
8:9 — 12. 11:31,45. 12: 11. I must conclude, there- 
fore, that the fidikvyua eo^ucoauo* in Matthew and Mark 
refers to Dan. 11 : 31 or 12 : 11 : in either of which cases 
the original must have designated Antiochus. 

Thus much I feel compelled to acknowledge, on the 
simple grounds of criticism: although the admission appar- 
ently makes against the cause which I am now advocating, 
or at least it seems to concede a vnovoia or occult sense in 
the passages last referred to. Does it necessarily imply one ? 

The general principle of exegesis on such ground has 
been discussed above, and need not be here renewed. It is 
enough for the present to say, that the application of the 
phraseology in question (so far as it belongs to the book of 
Daniel) to the wasting of Jerusalem by the Romans, no 
more proves that such was the original object of Daniel's 
words, than the application by Matthew (in chap. n. 15) of 
Hos. 11 : 1 to the exile of the child Jesus in Egypt, proves 
that Hosea 11 : 1 was originally a prediction respecting the 
exile of Jesus. In fact it is not a prediction at all, in 
any sense, but simply a historical declaration. But then, 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



107 



how natural and even appropriate for Matthew to say, that 
the words of Hosea : " I have called my Son out of Egypt," 
found a nbjQwaig in the sojourn of God's greater Son there, 
and in his recal from that country ! A certain event hap- 
pened in ancient times, viz., the calling of God's Son (a 
collective designation of the Israelites) out of Egyptian ex- 
ile ; a like event had recently taken place, when the Son 
of God in a higher and nobler sense was called out of exile 
in the same country. Was there not now a Tih'iQWGiq of 
the ancient declaration of the prophet, such as would com- 
pel almost every mind to feel the congruity of adapting 
that declaration to the recent events ? 

So is it, surely, with the case of Rachel weeping for her 
children, as described in Jer. 31 : 15, and applied by the 
prophet to the exile of the Jews ; while Matthew (2 : 17, 
18) applies it to the massacre by Herod of the infants who 
were in the town of Bethlehem. 

Perhaps even more than half of the fulfilments (nX^Qooasig), 
spoken of in the New Testament, are of the like character. 
Why not apply this simple and well known principle, this 
obvious usage of the New Testament writers, to the passage 
under discussion, in which reference is made to the book of 
Daniel ? I can see no good reason why they may not be 
so applied. But if this be allowed, the amount of the ref- 
erence in the Gospels to Daniel is, that he is appealed to 
as having described a waster of the temple and city of Je- 
rusalem in ancient times, of the like character and inten- 
tion as the waster who finally destroyed Jerusalem. What 
then took place had a nXr^waig now, i. e. the like thing 
happened in a still higher sense. And why may we not 
interpret these passages, in the same way as we feel com- 
pelled to interpret so many others 1 In fact it seems to me, 
that the Saviour, or the Evangelist, (it is difficult to say which 
speaks in the passage to be cited, and it matters not for our 



108 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



purpose), appears to have warned the reader by the paren- 
thetic o arccyiiatvxcov vosliw (let him icho readeth consider), 
that the original words of the prophet were not intended to 
have such an application as is made of them by the inter- 
preters in question, but only that they described events of 
altogether a similar nature. As of old, when Antiochus in- 
vaded Jerusalem and the temple, the pious Jews fled into 
the wilderness, so now, when the Roman power invades Ju- 
dea with purposes of destruction, Christians should flee to 
the mountains, etc. 

Viewed in this light, (and I am persuaded this is the 
light in which the passages before us ought to be viewed), 
these declarations of Jesus do not establish the position, 
that we ought not to apply the passages in Daniel accord- 
ing to the plain historical manner in which I have applied 
them. In vain do we seek in the book of Daniel, then, 
any justification for interpreting 1*260 days as meaning 
1260 years ; or any justification for interpreting any of 
the times specified there in a manner contrary to, or differ- 
ent from, their natural and obvious meaning, 



Come we then, at last, to the Apocalypse itself. 
Here is perhaps more difficulty than in the interpretation 
of Daniel ; but still we must travel in the same road as 
before, and see if we can find solutions which are satisfac- 
tory. This I apprehend may be done, if we continue to 
regard only the simple principles of interpretation. 

But before we undertake to do this, I must beg the read- 
er's attention to a few plain yet very important facts, in 
regard to the tenor and object of the Apocalypse. I can- 
not here discuss the topics which I am now about to sug- 



IN THE PROrHECIES. 



109 



gest at length, nor attempt the vindication of my views by 
appeal to all the minute particulars which the book of Rev- 
elations exhibits, and which might serve to confirm them. 
This must be reserved for another work of a more copious 
nature than the present, and where a more ample discus- 
sion than the present would naturally find an appropriate 
place. I must, however, beg the reader's earnest attention 
to the following suggestions, and entreat him at least to ex- 
amine and well consider them, before he decides against 
the views that may be proffered in the sequel. 

(I) It lies upon the face of the Apocalypse, from begin- 
ning to end, that it was written in the midst of a bitter and 
bloody persecution of the church. The writer himself is in 
exile, " on account of the word of God and the testimony 
of Jesus/' Rev. 1: 9; and the persons whom he addresses 
are exposed, or speedily to be exposed, to all the hardships, 
perils, and temptations, which result from persecution. Of 
course his object is to guard, to guide, to fortify, and to 
console Christians in such circumstances ; and never did 
a writer cleave more fully to his purpose, or execute it more 
effectually. The glorious rewards of those who persevere ; 
the speedy and condign punishment of persecutors ; the ul- 
timate and certain triumph of the church over all her ene- 
mies ; the universal spread of Christianity over the earth ; 
and the eternal happiness of all the faithful in the kingdom 
of God above ; are unfolded on the pages of the Apoca- 
lypse, and stand there deeply engraven in characters of 
light. He who runneth, may read. 

It follows now, from the plain and evident intention and 
object of the writer, that the book before us must consist 
of matter appropriate to its design. If we deny or over- 
look this, we must of course involve the writer in the charge 
of having failed to execute his purpose, or of having ex- 
ecuted it in a feeble or unsatisfactory manner. 
10 



110 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



Should we suppose, then, as many have done, that the 
Apocalypse is a kind of Syllabus of civil history, or of civil 
and ecclesiastical history, disclosing the leading events 
that are to take place down to the end of time among na- 
tions and kingdoms, nothing can be more plain, than that 
we should assign to it an object totally foreign to what was 
appropriate to the time and circumstances of both writer 
and reader. I am aware that the very first verse of the 
Revelation proclaims the design of the book to be, " to 
show to the servants of Christ the things that must come 
to pass." But what things ? The context and sequel of 
the book must answer this question. The Apocalypse is 
no dissertation de Omni Scihili. It has an appropriate and 
limited object ; and this is, to show the servants of God 
the certain triumph of the cause in which they were en- 
gaged, and to hold out the glorious reward consequent up- 
on being faithful unto death. 

That I am correct in this position, I think no one will 
seriously call in question who reads the book through, 
with his mind unembarrassed by any preconceived scheme 
of interpretation. And if 1 am correct, how is it possible 
to suppose, that the civil history of states and kingdoms, 
or of the various heresies which were to arise out of the 
church many centuries after the writer and all his readers 
were dead, are not only detailed in the book before us, but 
that the greater part of the book is occupied by this detail ? 
Yet on such a supposition many a commentator upon the 
Revelation has built his system. 

But I have not yet done with the declaration at the com- 
mencement of the book, that the object of the Revelation 
is "to show the servants of Christ what must come to 
pass." Many, I am aware, have stopped short with this 
single consideration, and endeavored to justify their sylla- 
bus of civil and ecclesiastical history thereby. But there 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



Ill 



is another most important circumstance attending this de- 
claration, which needs to be noted. This is, 

(2) That the things to come to pass are those, which are 

SHORTLY TO COME TO PASS. 

I cannot stop here to examine how often the repeated 
declarations of this book to this purpose have been over- 
looked, or the force of them evaded by ingenious conjec- 
ture. Most expositors have indeed made too little of these 
direct and positive declarations ; but a few, such as Wet- 
stein, Herder, and some others, have made too much. 
There is a medium ; nor is it difficult, as I apprehend the 
matter, to discover what it is. The great body of the 
work appears to me, beyond any well-grounded doubt, to 
have reference to events speedily to take place, or at least 
speedily to commence taking place ; for the second catas- 
trophe is a prolonged one, as may be seen in Rev. xvi. — xix. 
A very small portion of the work, e. g. chap. xx. xxi., 
has respect most plainly to the distant future. This is 
what the nature of the case would seem to require, and 
this too is what the nature of the expressions under con- 
sideration admits. More or less than this would not be 
compatible with both of these. 

We must now turn our special attention, for a few mo- 
ments, to the further development of the declarations in 
question. In Rev. 1: 1 the writer says, that God gave to 
Christ the Revelation, " in order to show his servants what 
should take place iv xayn, speedily, quickly P In 1: 3, the 
author solemnly declares, that what is written in this book 
is of speedy accomplishment: e O v.mqhq iyyvg, the time is 
near, i. e. the time when what is revealed will be accom- 
plished. Thus much in the prologue to the book. The 
epilogue repeats three several times the equivalent decla- 
ration : Behold I come quickly ! 22 : 7, 12, 20. The com- 
ing of Christ is the main subject of the book; so that the 



112 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



declaration here is, that what the book contains will speed- 
ily be accomplished. 

That such must be the meaning, is evident by appeal to 
similar declarations in Rev. 2 : 16. 3 : 11, and 11: 14. No 
one can doubt, that what is said is what is meant, in these 
last cases. As little reasonable doubt can there be, if 
philology is to be trusted, in the cases just cited from the 
prologue and epilogue of the book. 

What tolerable meaning now can be given, and defend- 
ed on exegetical grounds, to the declarations in question, 
if we suppose that the main portion of the book relates to 
events some thousand and more of years then future ? And 
if every writer is to be permitted the liberty of explaining 
his own purpose, why should we refuse to John the liberty 
that we concede to all others ? 

But still, one more consideration is to be taken into 
view, to which I have already alluded. This is, that a 
very small portion of the book, (strictly considered only 
chap, xx., for the sequel is mere expansion of a part of 
this), has respect to the distant future. So plain is this 
distant future here brought into view, that no explanation 
or defence of this position is needed. Of course some 
modification of the expressions, coming to pass quickly 
and coming quickly, is necessary. But here is no difficul- 
ty. The great mass of the book respects events in reality 
to be completed speedily, or speedily to commence being 
completed. On these the writer dwells at length, and 
spreads them out from chap. 6 : 1 to chap. 19 : 21. Of the 
distant future he gives, even in the sequel, nothing more 
than a few rapid glances. In describing the new heavens 
and the new earth he is indeed more copious ; but this is 
a delightful theme, and is not properly prediction, but de- 
scription which is intended for the very purpose of creating 
emotion in the breast of his readers. 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



113 



Thus considered, all harmonizes. We admit the full 
force of the declarations, that a speedy accomplishment of 
what is said, i. e. of the great portion of what is said, will 
take place. We interpret the words of the writer in a 
straight-forward manner, without resort to any subterfuges, 
without at all explaining away the writer's words. We 
extend the briefness of time for accomplishment, to every 
thing in the book which in its nature is susceptible of such 
an application. More cannot reasonably be asked ; less 
cannot reasonably be assumed ; for every writer should be 
left, so far as may be, to explain himself. 

(3) It would seem to follow from the positions thus laid 
down, that we are at liberty, or rather that we are obliged, 
if possible, to seek for a fulfilment of the predictions in the 
main body of the Apocalypse, within a time which is not 
far distant from the period when the book was written. If 
such a fulfilment can be found as coincides with the pe- 
riods named in the Apocalypse, then what good reason 
can be offered why we should reject it ? Or rather : Why 
are we not excgetically obliged to admit it ? 

That there are some designations of time in the Apoca- 
lypse, which are to be symbolically taken, i. e. which, 
though definitely expressed, are not meant to be urged by 
the reader in the literal shape, all, I suppose, will concede. 
For example ; in Rev. 2 : 10 it is said to the church at 
Smyrna, that " the devil would cast some of them into pri- 
son, that they might be tried and afflicted for ten days," 
That a short period merely, but not a strictly definite one, 
is here meant, will be generally admitted. If the reader 
wishes to see how the scriptural writers can employ the 
number ten in such a kind of way, he may compare 1 Sam. 
25 : 38. Neh. 5 : 18. Jer. 42 : 7. Dan. 1: 12, 14. Acts 25 : 
6, al. ; where he may find examples to this purpose. The 



114 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



mind naturally prefers a definite time, as being more em- 
phatic ; hence ten days may well be taken for a short, but 
really indefinite, period. We may compare with such a 
usage the Latin sex centies (six hundred times), which, in 
the like way, means a large and indefinite number of times. 

It is scarcely necessary to mention, that hour of trial, 
in Rev. 3 : 10, means season of trial; and such is the mean- 
ing of the word hour oftentimes in the Old Testament and 
in the New. 

Once more ; in Rev. 9 : 10 it is said, that the army of 
locusts from the abyss, commissioned to inflict wounds up- 
on men like those of scorpions, " should have power to in- 
jure men five months" Now as the natural locust makes 
his appearance about the commencement of May, and de- 
parts about the close of September, it would seem quite 
plain that the writer had regard to this, in the limitation 
of the period during which the locusts from the abyss 
were to torment men. The design plainly seems to be, to 
indicate that they shall torment them only for a short pe- 
riod, like to that in which the natural locusts consume the 
productions of the earth. Of course, a period strictly defi- 
nite does not appear to be here designated ; for plainly 
such cannot have been the writer's design. We may there- 
fore reckon this among those cases, in which the use of 
numbers is to be understood in a tropical way. All at- 
tempts to show that a day for a year is meant here, would 
be nugatory ; for to what can 150 years in this case be ap- 
plied? Equally nugatory is it to attempt the making out 
of any valid proof, that the exact literal five months is here 
to be insisted on. Any series of historical facts, which 
would accord well with the account of the ravages of the 
locusts as here described, never has been, and in my ap- 
prehension never can be, satisfactorily made out. The 
whole is poetic tropical description, intended to show the 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



115 



aggravated punishment which the persecutors of Chris- 
tianity will receive. 

But the designations of time in the Apocalypse, about 
which there is any important controversy, may be found 
in chap. xi. — xm., and in chap. xx. The latter, however, 
stands by itself; our principal concern is with the former. 

In Rev. 11: 2, it is predicted that " the Gentiles shall 
tread under foot the holy city, forty and two months" 
which are equal to years or 1260 days. That Jerusa- 
lem is here meant, the very epithet given to it (holy city) 
shows; or if this should be questioned, v. 8th settles the 
controversy, for it names the city as the place where our 
Lord was crucified. Besides ; the temple of God that was 
to be measured (11: 1), was there; and in chap, vn., the 
144,000 who are to be sealed, and thus exempted from im- 
pending evils, are all selected from the twelve tribes of Is- 
rael. Declarations such as these must identify the objects 
of chastisement in view by the writer, in all which he has 
disclosed in chap. v. — xi., viz. the destruction of the Jew- 
ish persecuting power. Jerusalem, as being the metropo- 
lis, is, as often in the Old Testament, made the symbol or 
representative of the whole country or nation. The reader 
needs only to be reminded, how often Zion and Jeru- 
salem stand, in prophetic language, as the representatives 
of the Jewish government, polity, land, and nation, in or- 
der to accede to the position, that the capitals in the 
Apocalypse are to be considered as the symbols of the coun- 
try and of the government to which they belong. 

When John therefore predicts, in Rev. 11: 2, that "the 
holy city shall be trodden under foot 42 months," this of 
course involves the idea, that the country of which the 
holy city is the capital, is also trodden under foot. To 
make their way to the capital, a foreign enemy, coming (as 
the Romans did) from the north, must have overrun a 



116 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



great portion of Palestine antecedently to the capture of 
Jerusalem. The prediction of course includes both, inas- 
much as the holy city is made the representative of the 
country at large. 

I understand this prediction as being in substance the 
same as that in Matt, xxrv., and in the parallel passages of 
the other Evangelists. The consummation is related in 
Rev. xi., i. e. the consummation of the event for which 
preparation had been making ; which preparation the 
Apocalyptist exhibits in chap, v.— x. Let us now resort 
to history, and see what the result of an inquiry respecting 
facts will be. 

Previous to the final outbreak of a general war between 
the Jews and Romans, there had been often repeated tu- 
mults and partial insurrections, and a state of great dis- 
quiet and insecurity for some time, but especially were all 
these things greatly augmented in A. D. 66 ; all of which 
corresponds well with the descriptions in the Evangelists 
and in Rev. v. — x. At length in Oct. of A. D. 66, Ces- 
tius, the Roman Prefect of Syria, moved by the tumults of 
the Jews, laid siege to Jerusalem, and captured the lower 
part of the city ; but after a few days he abandoned this 
enterprise and retreated. The unquiet state of things in 
Palestine being made known to Nero at Rome, during the 
winter that followed, he sent Vespasian and his son Titus, 
to subdue and punish the Jews. In the spring of the fol- 
lowing year (A. D. 67), Vespasian having collected his 
troops made a descent, early in the month of May, upon 
Galilee. The attack upon Palestine having thus com- 
menced, it was continued thenceforth with unabated fury, 
until the city of Jerusalem and temple were taken and ut- 
terly destroyed, early in Aug. A. D. 70. And although 
the war was still carried on, after this, against several 
small fortresses here and there, yet it was considered as 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



117 



substantially at an end, by the capture of Jerusalem ; and 
such was indeed the fact, for Titus and the main part of 
his army soon left the country. 

Here then are the 42 months in question, with the va- 
riations at most of only a few days, or possibly weeks. 
The time when the imperial power of Rome, i. e. Nero, 
made a formal declaration of war against Judea and com- 
missioned Vespasian and his son to execute his hostile de- 
termination, may be fairly taken as the terminus a quo of 
the Jewish war ; for all that had preceded was but tempo- 
rary and local insurrection on the part of the Jews, and 
was resisted only by the subordinate authority and power 
of the Prefect of the province. This commission appears 
to have been given in the latter part of the winter of A. D. 
67 ; for we find that Vespasian, who repaired to Antioch 
after receiving it, in order to collect his troops, was not 
ready to march upon Judea until some time in the month 
of May of the same year. If we suppose now that the for- 
mer part of February was the month when war was de- 
clared, or the commission made out, we shall find that three 
years and six months elapsed, between this period and the 
taking of Jerusalem and destroying it, on the 10th of 
Aug. A. D. 70. 

During this period, the disciples of Christ, giving heed 
to the warning of their divine Master (Matt. 24 : 16 — 22), 
fled from Palestine, and retreated to the wilderness-coun- 
try east of the Jordan ; thus fulfilling, as we shall have oc- 
casion to remark in the sequel, the period of flight for safe- 
ty to the wilderness, which is attributed to the woman (the 
church), in Rev. 12 : 6, 14. 

Another period mentioned in Rev. 11: 3 is of the same 
extent as that which has already been examined, and con- 
temporaneous with it. It was foretold by the Saviour, in 
Matt. 24 : 9 — 13, that, during the aggressive war made 



118 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



upon Judea, the spirit of persecution against Christians 
would rage in an unwonted manner, and many of his dis- 
ciples perish. Such was indeed the case. The fury of 
the Zealot-party was without bounds, when the rage of 
war had enkindled all their violent passions. Although 
the great mass of Christians fled from before them and the 
Romans, so as to save their lives, yet all did not and could 
not retreat. Many remained in their country, faithful con- 
fessors of Christianity even unto death. Against these 
witnesses (see Rev. 11: 3) or martyrs, the great body of the 
Jews are represented as arraying themselves, in Rev. 11: 
3 — 12, and as persecuting them unto death. For a while, 
the miraculous powers of some of the Christian teachers 
overawed their malignant enemies, Rev. 11: 5, 6. But at 
last the faithful witnesses v/ere destroyed. The period of 
consummating their destruction is limited, however, in the 
same manner as that of the subjugation of Palestine. Dur- 
ing all the period of Romish invasion, the spirit of hostili- 
ty to Christianity was active ; and yet persecution unto 
death did not root out Christianity. It continued rising, 
it triumphed ; for " the blood of martyrs was the seed of 
the church. 55 

The destruction of Jerusalem put an end of course to 
the Jewish persecuting power in Judea. Consequently 
the period in which Christianity becomes triumphant over 
persecution there, is contemporaneous with the destruction 
of Jerusalem. Nothing can be more clear, than that the 
period of the two witnesses is the same as that of " treading 
the holy city under foot by the Gentiles," Rev. 11:2,3. 
Two witnesses, and but two, are specified, as we may 
very naturally suppose, because " by the mouth of two or 
three witnesses every word is established." 

The sum of Rev. xi. is, then, that the Romans would 
invade and tread down Palestine for 3J years, and that 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



119 



Christians, during that period, would be bitterly persecuted 
and slain ; but still, that, after the same period, the perse- 
cution would cease there, and the religion of Jesus become 
triumphant. The words of the Saviour in Matt, xxiv., 
compared with the tenor of Rev. xi., seem to lead us plain- 
ly and safely to these conclusions. And in these we may 
acquiesce, because historical facts are before us, which 
serve to show that the forty-two months or 1260 days are 
to be understood in their plain and obvious sense. 

We may now come to the other periods, named in Rev. 
xii. xiii. The writer of the Apocalypse here passes to 
the second great catastrophe in his august drama, and 
commences it with a proem which is regressive. The wo- 
man clothed with the sun, and having under her feet the 
moon and stars, is a symbol of the church all glorious and 
resplendent in the eyes of God and all his faithful servants. 
The man-child who is born, and who is " to rule all nations 
with a sceptre of iron" (Ps. 2 : 9. Rev. 12 : 5), is doubtless 
the Messiah. The dragon ready to devour him at his birth, 
reminds us of Herod's attempt to massacre the infant Sa- 
viour at Bethlehem, when moved to such a deed by the 
great adversary of Christianity. The child caught up un- 
to God, is the Saviour ascended to glory. The flight of 
the woman to the desert, for 1260 days, at a period subse- 
quent to this (comp. vs. 5, 6), is a symbol of the church 
fleeing from the invading Romans and persecuting Jews, 
during the subjugation of Palestine. At Pella in the wil- 
derness, beyond the Jordan, the Christians of Judea found 
safety and freedom, Rev. 12 : 6, 14. The latter of these 
two verses designates again the same period of retreat and 
safety as the sixth verse, but in a different way, viz., it is 
designated (after the manner of Dan. 7: 25. 12 : 7) by the 
expression time and times and a half a time, Rev. 12 : 14. 



120 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



When this period expires, then the church is freed from 
the desolating power in Palestine ; as it was, of old, freed 
from the like power in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
The similarity of events, in the two cases, gives occasion 
to adopt the same language in respect to the continuance 
of both. 

Only one more period of the like extent remains. It is 
that designated in Rev. 13 : 5 ; where it is said of the beast 
which rises up out of the sea, that ' he should have power 
to persecute during forty-two months.' Who this beast 
was, we cannot, after the explanations given in Rev. xvn., 
well doubt. The persecuting power of imperial pagan 
Rome, and specially that power as exercised by Nero, is, 
beyond all reasonable question, symbolized by the beast 
described in Rev. 13 : 3 seq. 

The first position here, viz. that the persecuting power 
of pagan Rome is symbolized, will hardly be called in 
question. But the particular reference to Nero may not 
improbably be questioned ; and therefore, a few words in 
respect to this will not be out of place. 

To the beast is assigned seven heads and ten horns, Rev. 
13 : 1. That the seven heads represent so many kings or 
emperors, (for both were called fiavikuq by the Greeks), 
is certain from the explanation given in Rev. xvn. 10. 
"The seven heads .... are seven kings." But in the 
language of the Apocalyptist, the beast stands not only as 
a symbol of the imperial power of Rome, generic ally con- 
sidered, but frequently for that power as exercised by some 
individual king or emperor, e. g. Nero. Such is the usage 
in chap. xm. xvn., and occasionally elsewhere. It is im- 
portant to note this ; for otherwise the reader may be easily 
misled. Whenever the beast is distinguished from the 
seven heads, it then is employed as a generic symbol of 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



121 



the imperial power ; but when particular and specific ac- 
tions or qualities of a personal and distinctive nature are 
predicated of the beast, it designates the imperial power 
as individually exercised, e. g. by Nero. 

That Nero was in the exercise of this power when John 
wrote the Apocalypse, seems to be quite plain from Rev. 
xvii. 10 : " Five [kings] are fallen ; one is ; the other has 
not yet come, but when he shall come, he will continue 
but a short time." The Jive fallen are Julius Caesar, Au- 
gustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. Of course Nero 
is the sixth ; and he is therefore the one who now is. Gal- 
ba, who reigned but seven months, makes the seventh. 
Some recent commentators indeed, e. g. Ewald, Liicke, and 
some others, begin to count with Augustus, and end with 
Otho; but this was not the usual method of reckoning 
among either the Romans or the Jews, (as I hope to show 
elsewhere) ; for, that they usually reckoned in the manner 
above stated, may be seen in Suetonius' Twelve Caesars. 
So also in Orac. Sybill. V. 12. 4 Ezra 12 : 15. Josephus, 
Antiq. xvm. 2. 2, also xvni. 6, 10. xix. 1, 11. Chronicon 
Pascale, p. 533 (edit. Bonn.), also p. 360. And the same 
is true of some other ancient writers. This seems to fix 
both the date of the Apocalypse itself, and to designate the 
individual who exercised the power of the beast, when John 
wrote the Revelation. 

But there are other things in the Apocalypse which 
serve also to characterize Nero, so as hardly to leave room 
for mistake. Thus in chap. xiii. 3 : " [I saw] one of his 
heads [viz. of the beast] as it were smitten unto death ; 
and his deadly wound was healed." Again in the explan- 
atory part of the second catastrophe, Rev. 17: 8, the angel 
says to John : " The beast which thou sawest, was, and is 
not, and will come up from the abyss, and go to destruc- 
tion ; and those who dwell on the earth shall wonder, 
11 



122 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



(whose names are not written in the book of life from the 
foundation of the world), when they behold the beast that 
was, and is not, and will make his appearance," (nagsaTai). 
Once more in Rev. xvn. 11 : " And the beast which was, 
and is not, even he is an eighth, and is of the seven, and 
goeth to destruction." 

To recount the efforts which have been made to inter- 
pret these passages, would of itself require somewhat of a 
volume. I have never seen, and cannot find, but one pro- 
bable solution ; and that is drawn from the history of the 
times, and particularly the history of what was said and 
generally believed respecting Nero, during his life-time, 
and even long after his death. I can give here only a mere 
sketch ; but this may aid the further inquiries of the reader. 

It was predicted by soothsayers of Nero, early in his 
reign, that he would be deprived of his office, flee his 
country, go to the East, and there recover dominion, spe- 
cially in Palestine. Many foretold, that he would even- 
tually recover the whole of his former dominion. The 
passage where this is fully related, may be found in Sueto- 
nius' Nero, c. 40. 

This report was modified in the course of its diffusion, 
and assumed a great variety of shapes. The most usual 
one, by far, seems to have been, that Nero would be assas- 
sinated, receive a wound apparently deadly, recover from 
it, and subsequently go to the East and return from it with 
great power, ravage Palestine, lay waste the church, and 
finally re-enter Rome with fire and sword, and avenge him- 
self of all his former enemies. 

In consequence of this, the great mass of the communi- 
ty, at that period, do not appear to have believed in the re- 
ality of Nero's death at the time when he was assassinated. 
Suetonius has related (Nero, c. 57), that many even at 
Rome, for a long time, decked his tomb with flowers, ex- 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



123 



pecting and hoping that he would revive. Moreover, in 
consequence of such an expectation, persons feigning them- 
selves to be Nero, appeared in several of the distant pro- 
vinces, and made great disturbances. Suetonius has told 
the story of such an impostor among the Parthians ; Nero, 
c. 7, see also Tacitus, Hist. I. 2. Tacitus has also told a 
similar story of another impostor in Achaia and Asia Mi- 
nor, Hist. II. 8. This was in the region where the Apoca- 
lypse was written, and shows that such reports must have 
been familiar to John's readers. Dio Chrysostom, (a con- 
temporary of Vespasian), in his Oratio de Pulchritud. (p. 
371) relates, that most persons supposed Nero to be still 
alive. 

Thus much for the belief of the heathen in general. 
Nor was this belief confined to them. Christians widely 
participated in it. Passages in abundance are to be found 
in parts of the Sibylline Oracles, some of which were 
written about A. D. 80, and others early in the second cen- 
tury, which show most plainly how vivid the persuasion 
was, that Nero would again make his appearance, notwith- 
standing his apparently deadly wound. The reader may 
find them at great length, in Orac. Sibill. IV. p. 520 seq. 
V. p. 547 seq., also p. 560 seq., p. 573 seq., p. 592 seq., p. 
619 seq.; likewise in Lib. VIII. p. 688 seq., and p. 693 
seq. (edit. Gallaeus) ; all written by early Christians, and 
expressive of their feelings and expectations. So in the 
oldest Commentary on the Apocalypse which is extant, 
viz. that of Victorinus (t 303), it is said that ' Nero was 
the beast who received the deadly wound,' Rev. 13 : 3. 
Lactantius adverts to the opinion, in his time, that Nero 
would yet make his reappearance, De Morte Persecut. c. 
2, ; and Sulpitius Severus, the ecclesiastical historian, 
near the close of the third century, adverts to the same ex- 
pectation ; Hist. Sac. II. 28, EL 29. Dial EL So late as 



124 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



Augustine's time (about A. D. 400), we find the same views 
still cherished, August. De Civit. Dei, XX. 19. 

The question is not now, at least with me it is not, 
whether the writer of the Apocalypse did himself partici- 
pate in this vulgar belief respecting Nero's reappearance. 
I have no apprehension that he cherished such views as 
these; certainly not, if he were (as I believe) an inspired 
man. My apprehension is, that in describing the beast, 
i. e. Nero, instead of calling him by name, (which would 
have been, in connection with what he said, a treasonable 
offence), he has adverted to him as the person respecting 
whom the reports in question were current, and purposely 
adverted to him in such a way, in order that his readers 
might easily know who was meant. 

Several circumstances serve to confirm this view of the 
case. After describing the beast whose deadly wound was 
healed, in Rev. 13 : 3 — 8, he adds immediately : " If any 
man has an ear, let him hear," i. e. let the reader very at- 
tentively consider who is meant in this case. He then 
subjoins : " If any one leads into exile, he shall go away 
into exile ;" Rev. 13 : 10. In other words : - He of whom 
I have been speaking, is the individual who exiles Chris- 
tians ; but mark well! He shall himself speedily be ex- 
iled." In chap, xvii., the effort to guide his readers and 
put them on their guard against an erroneous construc- 
tion of his words, is still more visible. After speaking of 
" the beast which was, and is not, and will come up from 
the abyss," he exclaims : 'P-dt 6 vovg 6 e'/oyy vocptav, here is 
a meaning which comprises wisdom" In other words : 
Some special sagacity is needed in the interpretation of 
this passage. 

By speaking in this way does not John show, that he 
does not expect his words, i. e. his description of the beast, 
to be understood as if he employed them simply to express 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



125 



his own individual belief, but only that he introduces upon 
the scene the person of whom such things are reported, 
viz., such as that his deadly wound is healed, and that he 
will again resume his imperial power ? 

Is there any more difficulty in such a supposition, than 
there is when the Saviour says to the Pharisees : " If I cast 
out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them 
out V Matt. 12 : 27. Is there any more, than when Jesus 
speaks of " unclean spirits as walking through desert 
places, seeking rest and finding none ?" Matt. 12 : 43. In 
both cases the popular opinion is cited, without any re- 
mark whether it is true or untrue. The speaker had 
another and different purpose in view. So here ; John's 
object was secretly to intimate to his readers, who was 
meant by the beast; and in order to accomplish this ob- 
ject, he has repeated those things which popular rumor 
had spread abroad respecting him, or at least alluded to 
them. But, as I have already noted, he has taken care in 
each case, to give a caution to his readers how they inter- 
pret this, or what use they make of it. On any other 
ground, why should these cautions be inserted in these par- 
ticular places, and omitted in all the other symbolical parts 
of the Apocalypse ? 

If the reader is satisfied, with me, that John might de- 
scribe Nero in this way, it will be easy to show him how 
well the description comports with the substance of the com- 
mon rumor. According to this, Nero was to be assassi- 
nated, and to receive a wound apparently deadly, and yet to 
recover from it. So says Rev. 13 : 3, " One of the heads 
[i. e. Nero] was smitten as it were unto death, and yet his 
deadly wound was healed. " What can be more exact? 
To detail the widely diverse, contradictory, and ineffectual 
efforts that have been made to explain and apply this in a 
different way, would occupy too much time here, and there- 
in 



126 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



fore be incompatible with my design. The most inge- 
nious among them is that of Bertholdt, who supposes Ju- 
lius Caesar (who was assassinated) to have been the head 
that received the wound. But a conclusive objection to 
this is, that not only was his wound not healed, but there 
was not any report abroad that it was healed. Another 
conclusive objection is, that the head which was wounded is 
described, in the sequel, as persecuting Christianity. This 
could not be true of Julius Caesar, who perished half a 
century before the Christian era. 

Common report made Nero, after reigning a while, to 
disappear for some time, then to make his appearance 
again, as if he had come up from the region of the dead, 
and finally to perish. So Rev. 17 : 8, " The beast which 
thou sawest, was, and is not, and will come up from the 
abyss [the world of the dead, or the grave], and go to de- 
struction." To the same purpose exactly is the last clause 
of the verse just quoted : " Beholding the beast, that he 
was, and is not, and will make his appearance, naQWTai" 
In v. 11 of the same chapter, a kind of paradoxical de- 
scription is given of this same beast : " The beast which 
was, and is not, even he is an eighth, and is of the seven, 
and goeth to destruction." This passage resisted all the 
efforts of commentators, before they began to follow in 
the path where the history of Nero's times led them. Now 
it becomes comparatively easy. Nero, who at first was 
emperor, then was deposed and assassinated, and after- 
wards was, according to general belief, to appear again, 
would on his reappearance, make an eighth (oydooq, not 
6 oydoog) ; while, at the same time, Nero had already been 
reckoned as one of the seven, and in fact belonged to them. 
If the reader will compare this part of v. 11, with the ex- 
pressions " will come up from the abyss" — " xal TiagscrTcti, 
and will make his appearance" — in v. 8, he will see that 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



127 



all three expressions are only diverse modes of designating 
one and the same thing. To say that he, " who had been 
one of the seven," will be an eighth, is of course the same 
as to say, that he will reappear, and stand again in his for- 
mer place. This, according to all but universal report 
and belief, Nero was expected to do. 

So paradoxical are all other interpretations of this pas- 
sage, or so arbitrary, so conjectural, so diverse, and there- 
fore unsatisfactory, that one is constrained to wonder how 
critics could have ever acquiesced in them. But in the 
interpretation of any book, where the reins are given with- 
out check to fancy and imagination, difficulties of this kind 
are leaped over instead of being removed. 

Enough to show the probability, I might almost say the 
certainty, that Nero is aimed at in this part of the Apoca- 
lypse. This supposed, all the difficulties of the writer's 
language appear to be solved, and every thing moves on 
harmoniously. 

We return then to our principal theme, viz. the designa- 
tions of time in the book before us. 

To the beast, which we have just endeavoured to de- 
scribe, " is given power to do [his own will] forty and two 
months Rev. 13 : 5. The context shows that the power 
and will in question have respect to the persecuting of 
Christians. Bitter and bloody was this persecution ; but 
it was to last only 3<J years. 

Turn we now to the pages of history, and we shall find 
that Nero commenced his horrible persecutions of Chris- 
tians, about the middle or in the latter part of Nov. A. D. 
64. All agree that this persecution ended immediately on 
the death of Nero ; and this took place on the day that 
Galba entered Rome and was proclaimed emperor, i. e. on 
the 9th of June, A. D. 68. Here then is the often repeated 
and peculiar period of 3J years, being only a few days of 



128 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



excess beyond that measure of time. By this small excess 
of only a few days, no one of course can be stumbled ; for 
how is it reasonable to suppose, that in respect to a cele- 
brated period, so often repeated and already become so 
famous^ a statistical exactness would or could be aimed at ? 
Enough that only a few days at most can be considered 
as supernumerary. 

Thus becomes apparent the truth of the writer's most 
solemn declarations, both in his prologue and epilogue, 
that the time is short or near, when what is predicted 
will take place. It is not necessary, as we have already 
seen, to suppose that these declarations pertain to any 
more than the leading and essential parts of the book ; but 
so much as this we must suppose, in order to elicit from 
them any thing like their real meaning. The views which 
I have given above, aim at interpreting the book in con- 
sistency with those declarations. They do so by appeal to 
historical facts — facts which evidently accord with the 
spirit and language of the book. 

In order to prevent all misconception of my meaning, I 
must here suggest, that while the destruction of the beast 
is by implication predicted in Rev. 13 : 5, as taking place 
after forty-two months, and thus relief and deliverance as 
being given to the church, yet the manner in which the 
second catastrophe in the Apocalypse, viz. what is con- 
tained in chap, xn — xix., is presented, makes on the whole 
the distinct impression, that the first routing of the beast 
or destruction of Nero, does not complete the ichole of the 
catastrophe. Let the reader compare the 16th chap., spe- 
cially the close of it, with chap. xvin. xix., and he will ea- 
sily discern, that although the beast of John's time is de- 
stroyed, and thus the heathen persecuting power paralyzed 
for a time, yet the writer evidently supposes the contest 
not to be wholly at an end, but continued for a period 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



129 



which he does not limit. Yet the ultimate triumph of the 
church is certain ; and so chap. xix. represents it. The 
great and leading event, however, which the writer had 
particularly in view, viz. the end of Nero's life and perse- 
cution, was to take place speedily, in accordance with the 
declarations of the prologue and epilogue, as exhibited on 
p. Ill seq. above. Such a view of the subject shows us, 
that an indication of the protracted contest of the church 
with the beast, is not inconsistent with the language which 
John has employed in the proem of his book. 

On looking back and reviewing the series of facts which 
have now been brought into view, it is certainly remark- 
able, that so many important occurrences, in the history 
of the Jewish and Christian church, should be limited to 
3 J years or forty-two months. The wasting of Jerusalem 
and Palestine by Antiochus Epiphanes, and also by the 
Romans, continued just about the same length of time ; 
the bitter persecution of the two witnesses, and the retreat 
of the woman (the church) to the wilderness, were of the 
same extent of time ; and finally the persecution by Nero 
parallelizes altogether with these events, as to continuance. 
No wonder then, that years (i. e. half of the perfect 
number seven) should have become a very common limita- 
tion of events which took place, or were supposed to take 
place, within a moderate period of time. Thus in James 
5 : 17 and Luke 4 : 25, it is said, that in the time of Eli- 
jah " it did not rain for the space of three years and six 
months although in 1 Kings 17: 1 seq. no limitation is 
assigned to the time. So the Rabbins : " He [the king 
of Babylon] sent Nebuzaradan, that he might lay waste 
Jerusalem three years and six months Eccha IV. 12. 
" Three years and a half Vespasian besieged Jerusalem 
Eccha I. 5. " Adrian besieged Bither three years and a 



130 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



half;" Ecc. II. 2. " The punishment of the antediluvi- 
ans, of the Egyptians, and of the impious Gog and Magog, 
in Gehenna, will be twelve months ; that of Nebuchadnez- 
zar and Vespasian wiD be 3 J years Ecc. I. 12. All 
these examples, and more which might be produced, serve 
to show how extensively the limitation of time now in 
question was employed in ancient times. It accorded 
with the great and well known periods of devastation, in 
earlier times. And such being the fact, a statistical ex- 
actness cannot be reasonably supposed to be aimed at, in 
cases of this nature. Any near approximation to the 
measure of time in question, would of course be regarded 
as a sufficient reason for setting it down under the general 
rubric. 

We have now gone through with all the designations of 
time in the Apocalypse, which are the subjects of particu- 
lar interest, excepting one. This is the famous thousand 
years, from which the Millennium takes its name, and 
which is predicted in Rev. 20 : 4 — 7. Is this to be literal- 
ly understood ? Or is a day here to be counted for a year ? 

If it were allowable for an interpreter to give that mean- 
ing to words which would best accord w T ith his own wish- 
es, I should be altogether disposed to join here w T ith those, 
who make every day to stand for a year. Three hundred 
and sixty thousand years, (for the year of prophetic diction 
is, beyond all reasonable doubt, 12 months of 30 days 
each), of uninterrupted prosperity to the church — of the 
church as extended over a great portion of the human 
race — is a most delightful idea. And inasmuch as the 
promise has been made, that " the seed of the woman shall 
bruise the serpent's head," why may w T e not suppose that 
the universal diffusion and triumph of Christianity will en- 
dure, for a period as long as this ? Most gladly would I 



IN THE PROPHECIES, 



131 



find reason, if I could, to acquiesce in such a delightful 
view of prophecy. But the laws of interpretation forbid 
me ; and how can I repeal them 1 

No intimation is given by John, in Rev. 20 : 4 — 6, that 
days stand for years. The analogy of the book, if we may 
trust the results to which we have already come, is against 
such an interpretation. Designations of time are, in their 
very nature, the least susceptible of all parts of language, 
of bearing a secondary or arbitrary meaning. In their 
own nature they are capable of but one tropical sense ; 
and this is where a few particular numbers are taken, by 
customary usage, as the symbols of some generic and ab- 
stract idea ; e. g. when seven is taken as the symbol of 
completeness or fulness, or a thousand for the idea of much, 
great multitude, large quantity, etc. Even this use is 
exceedingly limited extending to only three, seven, and 
perhaps ten, forty, one thousand, and ten thousand. In all 
other cases, number is simply number, literally number 
and nothing else. From the nature of the case, those in- 
stances only can be excepted, where the writer or speaker 
tells us expressly, that he makes a less time (e. g. one day) 
the representative of a greater period (e. g. one year). 

A thousand years, then, in Rev. 20 : 4 — 6, must mean 
simply what it says, or it must be interpreted as being 
symbolically employed in order to designate the generic 
idea of a very long period. That the Scriptures afford 
some ground for interpreting it in this latter manner, may 
be seen by considering for a moment the nature of the fol- 
lowing expressions : " The Lord make you a thousand 
times as many as you are ! God who keepeth covenant 
to a thousand generations. How should one chase a thou- 
sand ! If there be an interpreter, one of a thousand. 
The cattle on a thousand hills are mine. A day in thy 
courts is better than a thousand. A thousand shall fall at 



132 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



thy side. Though he live a thousand years twice told. 
One man among a thousand have I found. A little one 
shall become a thousand. The city that went out by a 
thousand. And they sacrificed ... a thousand bullocks, 
a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs ; [literal, in one 
sense, but having a tropical significance]. One day is 
with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years 
as one day." 

Thus there evidently runs, through the whole Bible, an 
idiom which employs a thousand as an indefinite expres- 
sion to designate a great number, a large quantity ; and 
we act consistently as critics, if we so interpret it in Rev. 
20 : 4 — 6. But we stand on ground still more safe and 
certain, if we interpret it simply in accordance with its 
literal and obvious meaning. 

That the final proportion of men who will be redeemed, 
must be greater, yea much greater than that which will be 
lost, seems to be made certain by the ancient promise, 
that " the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's 
head." Gen. 3 : 15. But how can this promise be true, 
if, after all, Satan shall destroy the larger portion of the 
human race ? We may reasonably conclude, then, that 
during the millennial period, when many of the present 
causes of abridging and destroying human life shall cease, 
and the means of subsistence be greatly increased, that the 
world will support some twenty or more times as many 
people as it now does, (which it is clearly capable of do- 
ing), and that the predominant portion of these, during all 
that period, will be Christians. I say the predominant 
portion ; for this is all that Rev. xx. allows me to say. Im- 
mediately after the expiration of the thousand years, Gog 
and Magog come up " from the four corners of the earth," 
i. e. its distant extremities — come up "in numbers as the 
sand of the sea," in order " to make war against the 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



133 



saints," Rev. 20 : 8. Now there is not the least intima- 
tion here, on the part of the writer, that Gog and Magog 
are apostates or deserters from the Christian camp. On 
the contrary, their abode is not among Christians in the 
civilized and christianized parts of the world, but only 
in the four corners or most distant extremities of the 
world. That the number of them is said to be " like the 
sands of the sea," is enough to show, that Christianity had 
not yet, during the thousand years, extended to the whole 
of the hupian race. That apostates from Christianity, 
and from true Christianity, (for surely such is the religion 
of the Millennium), could at once be made of numbers so 
great as are here named, is out of all reasonable question. 
The thing is impossible on the ground of divine promise, 
and improbable as it respects the habits and the nature of 
sanctified men. 

It would be foreign to my present purpose to dwell on 
the question : Who are Gog and Magog ? The reader 
may find them, and the history of the war which they will 
wage, in Ezek. xxxvm. xxxix. When Ezekiel and John 
wrote, Gog and Magog, in the common language of the 
day, were names which imported in Palestine and in the 
East, what the word Scythian did of old to the Greeks and 
the Romans. They were the hordes of the northern Cau- 
casus region, who were regarded as barbarians and (if I 
may make use of a phrase familiar to us) as living out of 
the world. By people such as these, John predicts that 
the third and last great assault will be made upon the 
church. It will be violent, but short. And the sequel will 
be the universal reign of Christianity ; for Satan will now 
loe cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20 : 10), and there will 
of course " be nothing to hurt or offend in all God's holy 
mountain. "* 

* [n Ezek. 38: 2, Gog and Magog are associated with Meshech 
and Tubal ; which circumstance gives us a clue to the locality of 

12 



134 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



The assumption so often made that the end of the world 
is immediately to follow the overthrow of Gog and Magog, 
is by no means certain, nor even at all probable. It does 

those nations. There is no room to doubt that Meshech and Tu- 
bal lie near the south-eastern extremity of the Euxine Sea, or be- 
tween that and the Caspian lake ; see Rosenm. Bib. Geog. I. p. 240. 
Ges. Lex. in verba. The countiy of Magog must have been some- 
where in this vicinity, and most probably it lay northward among 
the Caucasian mountains. So the whole current of ancient wri- 
ters seems to have decided. Jerome (on Ezek. 38 : 2) says, that 
" Magog means the Scythian nations, fierce and innumerable, who 
live beyond the Caucasus and the lake Maeotis, and near the 
Caspian Sea, and spread out onward even to India." In the same 
manner Theodoret speaks ; and also Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. III. 
Pars. II. 16, 17, 20. The Arabian books are full of appeals to Gog 
and Magog; as may be seen in Klaproth's Asiat. Magazine, I. p. 
138 seq., where a large selection of passages is exhibited. Moham- 
med has more than once named Gog and Magog in the Coran. 
In Sura XVIII. 94, he alludes to Alexander the Great as building a 
high wall of brass and iron, between the mountain-passes of the 
north, in order to keep Gog and Magog from making excursions 
into the more southern regions. Toward the end of the world, 
this wall, as he represents it, will be broken down, and Gog and 
Magog will rush through, and lay waste the regions of the South. 
They, with other infidels, will then all be turned into Gehenna, 
and the end of the world will come. Another allusion to this same 
tradition, may be found in Sura XXI. 95 seq. 

In accordance with this, a Syrian Jacobite Christian, about the 
same period in which Mohammed lived, wrote a poem in Syriac 
hexameters, which has been published in G. Knos' Syriac Chres- 
tomathy, A. D. 1807. This remarkable production also assigns to 
Alexander the building of an iron wall or gates between the north- 
ern [Caucasian] mountain-pass, in order to keep out Gog and Ma- 
gog from more southern Asia. Near the close of the world the 
gates are to be opened, and Gog and Magog, with countless hosts, 
w T ill overrun and destroy all the southern countries. 

Facts illustrating the traditions developed by these ancient wri- 
ters, may easily be stated. Russia took possession of the region be- 
tween the Euxine and Caspian Seas, about A. D. 1772. S. G. 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



135 



not follow from the fact, that John immediately proceeds, 
in his prophecy, to give an account of the general judg- 
ment. All that follows from this is, that it was to John's 
purpose to touch next upon this, having shown the com- 
plete and final triumph of Christianity over all enemies. 
The usage of the prophets in respect to junctions of such 
a nature, in their descriptions, can hardly fail to be no- 
ticed by every observing eye. For example ; in Is. n., the 

Einelin, a man of scientific acquirements, was soon sent out to ex- 
plore the newly acquired territory. In his book of travels, publish- 
ed in A. D. 1774, he mentions, that he found a high wall, with tow- 
ers at short distances, and much of them in a state of entire preser- 
vation, running from Derbend, the head quarters of the Russians on 
the Caspian Sea, toward the Euxine Sea, and extending, accord- 
ing to the universal tradition of the inhabitants of that region, en- 
tirely to the Euxine Sea. All agreed in calling this the icall of Gog 
and Magog. 

In addition to this it should be stated, that the celebrated English 
traveller, R. Kerr Porter, visited Derbend in 1819, where the same 
story was told him respecting the wall in question ; but accident 
prevented his going to see it ; Travels II. p. 520. 

The reader who wishes to pursue the further investigation of this 
curious subject, may consult Rosenm. Bib. Geog. I. p. 244. Ritter's 
Erdkunde, Th. II. p. 834 seq. Bayer, De Muro Caucaseo, Opusc. 
p. 94. Reinegg, Beschreibung des Caucasus, I. p. 120. See also 
Rosenm. Comm. in Ezek. 38 : 2. 

Thus it appears, that those "Asiatic Scythians," Gog and Magog, 
were a people well known in ancient times, and greatly dreaded. 
We cannot suppose that either Ezekiel or John meant their names 
to be literally interpreted; but so much we must suppose, viz., that 
both prophets used these appellations as familiar designations of a 
numerous and savage people. It is the work of destruction which 
they rush forth to accomplish — the destruction of the people of 
God. But they are speedily arrested, and meet with a fearful 
doom. So will it doubtless be with the last and powerful enemies 
of the church, from whatever quarter they may come. " When 
the enemy shall rush in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord will lift 
up a standard against them." 



136 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



prophet joins the coming of the Messiah, with the severe 
punishment of the oppressive and luxurious Jews of that 
time. He goes sill further, and even apparently links the 
one with the other by the phrase in that day. Again he 
describes, in most graphic language, the punishment of his 
contemporaries, chap. vn. vin., and then unites with this 
description one of the most prominent Messianic passages 
in the Old Testament, viz., that in chap, ix., " To us a 
Child is born, a Son is given, etc." In chap. x. he gives 
a copious account of the invasion of the king of Assyria, 
and of his overthrow ; and then he immediately subjoins a 
glowing description of the Messianic and Millennial day, 
chap. xi. Here only the particle 1 (and),=xaL in Rev. 
20: 11, stands between the two descriptions, without an 
intimation of any interval. With the overthrow of Idu- 
mea, in chap, xxxiv., he unites a glowing description of 
the Messianic day, chap. xxxv. In the last twenty-six 
chapters of this prophet, the constant transitions from de- 
liverance out of the Babylonish exile to the deliverance 
wrought by the Messiah, cannot escape any but the most 
inattentive reader. 

Thus it is in the evangelical prophet. Have any others 
followed in the same path ? They have. The book of 
Daniel unites with the end of the four great monarchies, 
viz., the Babylonish, the Medo-Persian, that of Alexander 
the Great, and that of his immediate Successors, the com- 
ing of the Messiah, yea the coming of the Millennium. 
So in chap. ii. vn. and ix. In other prophets the same 
thing is equally common, in cases of Messianic prophecy. 

Well has it been said, by an acute and learned interpre- 
ter of our times, that the prophets are like those, who, 
placed on an eminence, have a widely extended view of a 
distant country. But that country is one of hills and 
mountains, not an extended plain. Of course they can 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



137 



see only the tops of eminences, and have no means of 
judging how extensive are the valleys or table-lands be- 
tween. They do not undertake, therefore, to calculate 
distances. In speaking of these things, they turn the at- 
tention of their readers only to what they have seen them- 
selves, i. e. the prominent parts of the landscape. 

So with John and other prophets. Great events — the 
prominences of history — are seen and described, but (for 
the most part at least) not the intervals of time between. 
In the case before us, the description of the general judgment 
comes after the description of the fall of Gog and Magog, 
because the writer, having now brought the church to a 
state of universal triumph and security, hastens to complete 
his work by pointing out the glorious rewards that will en- 
sue, and the everlasting blessedness of the church trium- 
phant. 

My belief therefore is, that the setting sun of our world 
will be in unclouded glory. " Its hoary head," to borrow 
from a sacred writer, " will indeed be a crown of glory." 
My principal reasons for this are, that the promises made to 
the church and to its Redeemer ; the benevolence of the 
Godhead, and the triumph of mercy over the malignity and 
craft of Satan ; and also the analogy of all God's purposes 
and doings, in which there is always an advance toward 
the highest good — all unite in seeming to require such an 
interval of rest and peace and prosperity to his church. 
How long this will be, how many will become sons and 
daughters of the Lord Almighty, I do not pretend to know. 
But so much we may believe, viz., that " the Seed of the 
woman will bruise the serpent's head ;" and therefore that 
the number of the redeemed, from our fallen race, will at 
last immeasurably exceed that of the lost. 

What a consoling hope, in such a world of sin and misery 
as this ! Few indeed, thus far, can with any probability 
12* 



138 



DESIGNATIONS OF TIME 



be numbered among the children of God. Every year is 
sending its thirty millions to his tribunal, and has long 
been executing the same tremendous task. But is it to be 
always so ? The thousand years of triumph to the church 
we have seen not to be strictly universal. Numbers as 
the sand of the sea are still in the regions of Gog and Ma- 
gog. And shall one thousand years only, of the reign of 
Christianity thus limited, be allowed for the Redeemer's 
triumph, and more than six thousand for Satan's ? For- 
bid it, all that is benevolent in the Godhead ! Forbid it, 
dying love of Jesus ! Forbid it, all the precious promises 
which the words of everlasting truth present, engraved in 
characters of light, and elevating the hopes of dying man 
to a heaven of unfading glory, filled with countless beings 
made in the image of their God and Saviour ! 

But while I do most earnestly hope, and cannot but be- 
lieve, that the close of the world's existence will be a pe- 
riod of great prosperity and glory to the church, I cannot 
in any degree harmonize with those views respecting this 
period, which apply to it the descriptions in Rev. xxi. xxn., 
and the corresponding portions of the Old Testament pro- 
phets. The new heaven and the new earth, in Rev. 20 : 1, 
is plainly not the old heaven and old earth refitted and re- 
paired. " The first heaven and the first earth have passed 
aicay, and there is no more sea," Rev. 21: 1. Peter says, 
also, that " the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, 
and the elements burning shall be dissolved, and the earth 
and the works therein shall be burned up, xaTaxarp&xai, 
shall be utterly consumed" 2 Pet. 3 : 10. The general 
judgment, preceded by the universal resurrection of the 
dead, Rev. 20 : 11 — 15, is evidently, in the view of the sa- 
cred writers, the end of the probation-state of the human 
race. So Paul ; who also informs us, that then the media- 
torial office itself will be given up, so that the work of re- 



IN THE PROPHECIES. 



139 



demption can no longer proceed, 1 Cor. 15 : 24 — 28. 
These facts being thus plainly established, it follows that 
a place (so to speak) entirely new, fitted for the residence 
of beings with " spiritual bodies/' (as Paul calls them 
1 Cor. 15 : 44), is absolutely necessary. The apprehension 
that the present material world is to be so improved and 
modified, as to become the future residence of the blessed, 
agrees neither with the future state and condition of the 
blessed, nor with the declarations of the Scriptures, nor 
with the most ardent hopes of spiritual Christians. No ; 
all true believers " are to be caught up to meet the Lord 
in the air, and so shall they ever be with the Lord, 5 ' 1 
Thess. 4 : 17*. 

But, allured by the delightful prospects of the church 
which are unfolded in the Apocalypse, I am wandering 
from my theme. Let us return, and briefly conclude the 
present discussion, in which mere hints have been aimed at 
and suggested, by a simple recapitulation of what has been 
done, and the grounds on which it stands. 

§ 5. Concluding Remarks. 

There must be, there are, some principles applicable to 
the interpretation of language, which all men are bound 
to acknowledge and observe. If this be not true, then 
there is an end to all certainty in the results of interpreta- 
tion, and we never can tell what the Scriptures do mean, 
or what they may not mean. 

The reason why I have endeavored to show 7 that the 
double or occult sense of Scripture is inadmissible, is, that 
if we admit it, then we must give up all hope of ever fix- 
ing with certainty upon the original meaning of many por- 
tions of Scripture, and specially of the prophecies. If a 



* See the Appendix, where this subject is further examined. 



140 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



part of what Daniel predicts, for example, must be applied 
first to Antiochus Epiphanes (which is certain), and then 
may be applied, as to its occult meaning, to Antichrist, to 
the Pope, to Mohammed, or to all of these, then there is 
an end to all certainty in exegesis, because there is no tri- 
bunal before which the occult sense can be brought and by 
which it may be tried. It is because the prophecies have 
been so extensively interpreted in this way, specially in 
the English and American churches, that I have thought 
it important to say so much on this subject. He, who un- 
derstands the lengths to which this principle of interpreta- 
tion has been carried, will not accuse me of having over- 
rated the importance of the subject. 

It has also been a very common thing, even among the 
better class of interpreters in some cases, to speak of some 
of the prophecies, and to treat them, as having been unin- 
telligible at the time when they were uttered, and as com- 
ing to be understood only after they are fulfilled. Such a 
supposition of course throws to the winds some of the lead- 
ing principles of hermeneutics ; for if the language ever 
had a meaning, it must have been discoverable by the aid 
of those principles ; and if a meaning is ever assigned to it, 
it must be in accordance with these, or else it can be of 
no solid worth. An arbitrary application of language to 
particular events, without support from grammar and exe- 
gesis, is conjecture, not exposition. Besides all this, such 
a prophecy was at most no prediction surely, no revelation ; 
for, by the very supposition, it meant nothing intelligible 
before the events took place to which it relates, and there- 
fore could make and did make no revelation at all. 

It is time for the Christian church to have done with 
such problems as these. On such a ground, the Bible is 
no " light shining in a dark place," as Peter affirms it to 
be. It only adds another deepening shade to the gloom al- 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



141 



ready spread around. Why then should not such a prin- 
ciple, so dishonorable to divine teachers, and to that word 
which is " a light to our feet and a lamp to our path," be 
held up to view, and its deformities exposed ? 

As to that portion of this little work which has respect 
to the times designated in the Apocalypse and in the book 
of Daniel, the disputes of the present day sufficiently show 
the necessity of such inquiries. I have endeavored to 
walk in a straight and simple path. My first great position 
has been, that the Bible means what it says. When it de- 
signates times and seasons, therefore, the simple and ob- 
vious sense of the words is always to be followed, unless 
there is some special reason for departing from it. That 
reason can be only one, viz., when the context gives us in- 
formation that such a departure is to be made. This is 
done in Ezek. 4 : 5, 6, and in Num. 14 : 34. The passage 
in Dan. 9 : 24 plainly, as we have shown pp. 82 seq., does 
not belong to this category. Other cases than these, I am 
not aware of. In all others, therefore, where no such de- 
parture from the obvious sense is intimated, it follows of 
course that we are not at liberty to depart from it. If this 
be not a principle plain and certain, I know of none in the 
so called science of hermeneutics. 

My second aim in respect to this matter has been, to 
prove that history has preserved to us such a knowledge of 
facts, as will serve to show that the prophecies in question 
have been fulfilled, in their plain and obvious sense. If 
this effort has been successful, then the whole subject is 
at rest. The controversies of the present day, about the 
Pope, and Mohammed, and the French Revolution, and 
the infidel corps of Illuminati, and all like matters or per- 
sons, are things which have no specific ground or basis in 
the book of Daniel or of John. What John declared would 
take place shortly, happened according to his prediction ; 



142 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



and if so, the dispute whether it is all to happen over again, 
after so many centuries, cannot be a dispute of much in- 
terest or importance. One fulfilment is enough. 

Even if we should concede that 1260 days mean so many 
years, and that Romanism is the object of John's predic- 
tions, yet I do not see how we can ascertain where to be- 
gin this period. The Romish church was three or four 
centuries in coming into being ; or rather, one might even 
say with truth, that it was not consummated until the 
Council of Trent. Where then is the terminus a quo 1 
I am aware of the usual periods to which so many refer 
the beginnings of this apostacy. But they are not at all 
of a nature sufficiently definitive or decisive to be entitled 
to such a bad pre-eminence. It must be mere conjecture 
which fixes upon the beginning of such a period for such 
reasons ; and of course the end must be indefinite, where 
the beginning cannot be traced out with any definiteness. 
The truth is, that heathen-idolatry, and that only, is char- 
acterized in Rev. xiii. seq. ; and all efforts to make out 
any thing different from this, must be revolting to the sim- 
ple reader, who seeks merely to understand what the wri- 
ter meant. 

Plain as all this seems to my mind, yet I see many, and 
some very sensible persons too, greatly agitated about the 
end of the world, which, as many predict at the present day, 
is to come in the Spring of 1843. I do not say, it will not ; 
for I do not know this. But I do say, that it would be well 
for the public to call to mind the many predictions of the 
like nature which have already been wrecked, and which 
were maintained with as much learning, and as much con- 
fidence too, as present theories are. Specially would they 
do well to call to mind the notable case of John Albert 
Bengel, a Prelate of Wurtemberg, one of the best Greek 
scholars and sacred expositors of the last age, and the ed- 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



143 



itor of the famous critical edition of the New Testament 
which bears his name. His piety and talents are beyond 
fair question ; and sobriety, on all other subjects except 
the Apocalypse, was a prominent trait of his character. 
He spent the flower of his life in pursuit of the secret 
meanings of the Revelation. He came to a full persuasion, 
at last, that he had discovered them. He announced them 
to the world ; and in so doing, he says, with much modes- 
ty, that the only reason he has to doubt the disclosure of 
these secrets is, that it was made to so unworthy a person 
as himself. Yet, in the full confidence that the occult mat- 
ters of the Apocalypse had actually been revealed to him 
by the Holy Spirit, he published his book. Most devout- 
ly does he thank God for the wonderful disclosures which 
it is designed to make. The grand period as to all the 
leading parts of the great drama, according to his book, 
was to be consummated in A. D. 1836. If the face of the 
world should not be entirely changed at that period, then 
the church, as he concedes, must believe that he has been 
mistaken. But that the change expected would take place, 
he entertained not a shadow of doubt. 

So far, this great and good man. And we — we have 
lived to see 1836, and the world is still moving round the 
sun, and its busy inhabitants going on much as in days of 
yore. We never once thought, at that period, of the Ben- 
gelian revelations ; and cannot now discover the record of 
them on the page of history. 

Many a confident prediction, uttered by other romancers 
in prophecy, has met with the same fate, and been wrecked 
on the rocks whither the mighty stream of time hath borne 
them. Such is doubtless to be the destiny of many others 
also ; and yet, all this does not seem to diminish the con- 
fidence of those who write theological romances ! Be it so. 



144 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



If there must needs be euthusiasts and visionaries, (and it 
would seem that there must be), why may not this depart- 
ment of exegetical theology exhibit its due proportion ? 

Once for all, however, we may beseech such interpreters 
to listen to a word of caution. I will not reproach some of 
them, as I might do, with the presumption of undertaking, 
without any knowledge of the original Scriptures, to ex- 
pound a book, which, of all others in the Bible, demands 
the deepest knowledge of the original language of Scrip- 
ture, and of prophetic idiom. But may I not ask, how it 
came about, that when Jerusalem was to be destroyed, the 
exact time was so carefully kept back until the very eve of 
its accomplishment, from the disciples of Christ ? Mark 
tells us (13: 3), that the three favourite disciples went to 
Jesus, and asked him questions respecting the time of its 
desolation. He also tells us, that Jesus declared " that 
time (v. 32) to be unknown, not only to men, but to the 
angels in heaven, yea to the Son himself." It was only 
after the Roman army was in Palestine and had begun 
their task, that the time was declared to John, Rev. 11: 2. 

But we may appeal to a passage still more applicable to 
the present case, and which comprises more within its 
grasp. The anxious disciples asked of the risen Saviour : 
When wilt thou restore the kingdom to Israel ? It matters 
not what particular thing they had in mind, i. e. whether 
it was purely the spiritual kingdom of Christ, or the eccle- 
siastico-political kingdom which they had once been ex- 
pecting. The answer is one which should be engraven on 
a frontispiece and put upon the study door of every writer 
on the prophecies, who indulges the expectation of being 
able to point out the day and the hour of fulfilment. It 
was this : It is not for you to know the times or the 

SEASONS, WHICH THE FATHER HAS PUT IN HIS OWN POW- 
ER. Acts 1: 6, 7. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



145 



If now it was not for even apostles to know these secrets, 
is it for every curious and speculating mind, that knows 
little indeed either of history or exegetical science, to tell 
us all about such matters ? Is it not presumption to en- 
gage in such an undertaking ? God has undoubtedly de- 
termined upon the times and seasons, when all events that 
respect his church will take place. But it does not follow, 
that he has revealed this matter to us. We are satisfied 
that he has not. Why not leave to him the secret things 
which he claims as his own prerogative? Why assume to 
ourselves a position, which he does not allow us to assume I 
But alas ! all the disappointments of writers teeming 
with fancy and filled with confidence, in days that are 
past, seem to have made no serious impression on the like 
class of writers at the present period. As soon as ruthless 
time mows down one bed of flowers with his scythe, 
another is planted on their ruins, with the hope of its pro- 
ducing a more permanent crop. And so it will still be- 
When 1843 has passed away, and the world still moves on 
without being jostled from its orbit ; the Pope still issues 
his decrees from the Vatican ; the Sultan still haughtily 
points to his peering minarets and to the banners of Islam ; 
and faithful and humble Christians are still labouring and 
suffering as before ; then some more fortunate adventurer 
will discover latent error in former calculations, (as recent- 
ly has been done in respect to those of Bengel), and we 
shall then have a new period fixed upon as the consumma- 
tion-period of all. But this will, in all probability, be far 
enough in advance to be out of the reach of the generation 
who are addressed, and therefore beyond their power of 
absolute denial or of decisive correction. When this is 
once done with some good degree of ingenuity, then a new 
tune will be played upon the old instrument; and it will 
be listened to and applauded because it is new. Thus we 
13 



146 



CONCLUDING REMARKS, 



go on, amusing ourselves from one decennium to another, 
ever pursuing in fact the same phantoms, although we give 
chase to them in different directions. When such pursuit 
will be over it would be as difficult to say, as to fix upon 
the specific period of the Millennium. 

It may not be improper here to remark, that while the 
exact time cannot be discovered by us, and is not (as I be- 
lieve) revealed in the Scriptures, yet something may be 
said in respect to the probable period, when the genera] 
diffusion of Christianity will take place. My answer to the 
question respecting this would be, that it mil speedily take 
place, ichen all Christians, or at least the great body of 
them, come up to the standard of duty, or come very near 
to this standard, in their efforts to diffuse among the na- 
tions of the earth the knowledge of salvation. The divinely 
appointed means will secure the end, because God will 
bless them. Every Christian, then, and every society for 
propagating the knowledge of Christianity, is helping to 
usher in the millennial day, when they ply this work to 
the best of their ability. On such a ground, the strongest 
encouragement is held out to all faithful disciples. They 
may rest assured, that " their work and labor in the Lord 
are not in vain." 

But let us, on the other hand, suppose that a definite 
time has been disclosed in the Apocalypse, or elsewhere in 
the Scripture, before which it is impossible that the Mil- 
lennium should commence; what encouragement could 
Christians have to engage in efforts to christianize the 
world before that period arrives ? They must take every 
step with the assurance that the end is unattainable. Di- 
vine decree has fixed the time, and disclosed it to them, 
before which all means and all efforts to convert the na- 
tions must be unavailing. The consequence of course 
would naturally be, a total remission, on the part of true 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



147 



believers in the divine word, of all efforts to evangelize the 
world. And can it be thought credible, that the same 
voice which has proclaimed : " Go ye, and preach the gos- 
pel to every creature," has also proclaimed (and therefore 
w 7 e may rest assured) that before the middle or close of the 
19th century the nations will not hearken to it? This is 
not the manner in which the great Head of the Church is 
wont to deal with his servants. He has told them, that 
the times and the seasons the Father keeps in his own poiver. 
For the rest, they have only to obey his commands as to 
proclaiming the gospel, and leave the event with him. 

One thing more I feel constrained to say, before I quit 
this theme of the latter day of glory. Whether we have 
respect to the Millennium, usually so named, or to a more 
prosperous period still, near the close of time, the extrava- 
gant apprehensions so often entertained and avowed re- 
specting this season of prosperity, seem quite unworthy of 
credit. The prophets have indeed employed most glowing 
language, in describing the future season of prosperity ; 
and all they have said, will doubtless prove to be true, in 
the sense which they meant to convey. But let him who 
interprets these passages remember well, that they are 
poetry, and are replete in an unusual degree with figura- 
tive language and poetic imagery. Let him call to mind, 
moreover, that the language employed in the last twenty- 
seven chapters of Isaiah, in order to describe the return 
from the Babylonish captivity, and the prosperity which 
would ensue, is scarcely, if at all, less glowing than that 
which has respect to the future prosperity of the Messiah's 
kingdom. Besides all this, he must never forget that the 
present stage of our existence is probationary , and there- 
fore sin, suffering, and sorrow must be connected with it. 
Are we to be told in earnest, that men will, at some future 
period, be born destitute of any taint or free from any 



148 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



evil consequence of Adam's fall, and that they will be with- 
out sin, and need no regeneration or sanctification ? And 
must we thus be persuaded to believe, that they will not 
need a Redeemer too ? for this would be a necessary con- 
sequence of such a state of things. Christian churches, 
also, and a ministry of reconciliation, will no longer be 
needed; and even all civil government may be dispensed 
with ! No ; we must not indulge in such visionary con- 
ceits as these. The time will never be, so long as proba- 
tion lasts, when there will not be unregenerate men to be 
converted ; Christians to be instructed, guided, comforted, 
reproved, chastened ; and therefore abundance of work 
for Christian ministers. Their labours will indeed be 
crowned with success; but occasion for labour will always 
be occurring. " Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth," 
is a truth never to be lost sight of, in the preparation of 
sons and daughters for a state of glory. In the hands of 
God, suffering and trial become the means of the Chris- 
tian's higher good ; and therefore we cannot expect those 
means to be excluded from the millennial state. A great 
diminution of evil of every kind we may well expect, when 
the latter day of glory shall come. But men will still be 
frail dying creatures, and undergo pain and decay. They 
will be imperfect in holiness, and will need admonition 
and correction. They will still only " know in part, and 
believe in part," and will need a constant process of sanc- 
tification and illumination. The visionary schemes then, 
which represent the Millennium as the return of the primi- 
tive paradisiacal state, are not for a moment to be listened 
to by a sober and discreet man. The state of Adam's 
race is fixed and certain. A world of sin and suffering is 
as sure to be their probationary habitation, as that the de- 
cree of God will stand. Yet this same world will be the 
place where his rich and abounding compassion will be 



CONCLUDING REMARKS 



149 



shown in the most conspicuous manner. ' Glory will be 
given to God in the highest, that there is peace on earth, 
and that good will is manifested to the children of men.' 

It is no part of my design to utter personal reflections 
or to cast reproach on those, who, in England and in our 
own country, have for these many years been labouring to 
excite the churches to engage in speculations respecting 
the prophecies. That many of them are well-meaning 
men, and even men of ardent piety, I should be among the 
last to call in question. But John Albert Bengel was all 
this, and much more. He was a pillar of the higher order 
in the temple of God. His learning and philology com- 
mand homage even at the present time. Yet " the baseless 
fabric of his vision has not left a wreck behind/' And so 
it has fared — so I apprehend it will fare — with many a vati- 
cination equally confident with his. Why should we not 
take warning, when we hear the surges roar and see the 
breakers dash, to steer the good ship in a safe and more 
quiet direction 1 

If the matter in question merely concerned a few ardent 
men, prone to dive into turbid depths and seek for pearls 
there, we might leave them to dive, and pass quietly along 
upon our own way. But the church is assailed on all sides 
with the claims of these hariolations. It has even come to 
this, that the quiet and sober Christian is reproached with 
a want of faith, because he hesitates to engage in them, or 
to sympathize with them. Ministers of the Gospel are in 
some cases looked upon with coldness, and even with dis- 
dain, because they will not preach these fanciful interpre- 
tations. It is time, therefore, for common sense and rea- 
son to rouse themselves up for action, and make sober, 
honest, and thorough inquiry whether there is any good 
ground for all this excitement. There is nothing in sacred 
hermeneutics that casts such a stain on English and Amer- 
13* 



150 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



ican expositors, as the character of their interpretation of 
some parts of the prophets. They have no standard, no 
landmark, no compass. Every man says " what is right in 
his own eyes," and then calls upon others to agree with 
him. The most ingenious and fluent man is most extensive- 
ly applauded ; ingenious in forming conjectures, and fluent 
in his mode of developing them. Thus, as we might ex- 
pect, one book succeeds another with the greatest rapidi- 
ty ; and the public, at least a portion of it, ever thirsting 
after novelty, and excited by the hope of obtaining a look 
into the future, receive every new actor in this drama with 
more or less of applause. How often is one compelled to 
turn away from such a spectacle, with an agitated and even 
mournful look, and exclaim : When will the churches learn 
to believe what their divine Master declared, in saying to 
his anxiously inquiring disciples : It is not yours to 

KNOW THE TIMES AND THE SEASONS, WHICH THE FATHER 
HATH PUT IN HIS OWN POWER ! 

One thing at all events must be true. If the Bible is 
not to be interpreted by the common principles of language, 
it cannot be interpreted at all, except by inspired men. Is 
there any promise to the church of such a class of inter- 
preters ? If not, then our only safety lies in adopting and 
following out the common, well-known, and well-establish- 
ed principles of interpretation. That these are violated by 
the extravagant and unfounded views so common at the 
present day, lies upon the very face of the interpretations. 
The main object of this little book has been, to show how 
they are unfounded, and why they ought to be so regarded. 
And now I appeal to the sober judgment of every unpre- 
judiced reader, and ask him the question : Am I not in 
the right, in insisting that all designations of time should 
be interpreted according to their obvious meaning, when 
no good reason can be given why we should depart from 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



151 



this ? Are not the historical facts that I have adduced as 
the fulfilment of events predicted, as true to the represen- 
tations in the prophecies, as other fulfilments to which we 
usually appeal ? If so, why should we not be satisfied 
with them ? Why should we persevere in looking to cen- 
turies in advance for fulfilment of that, respecting which it 
is repeatedly and solemnly declared, that it shall take 

place SPEEDILY? 

Particularly would I urge one consideration here. It is 
this. How could it so happen, that all the various histori- 
cal events to which I have adverted as fulfilments of pro- 
phecy, and which, it must in candour be granted, look very 
much like fulfilments, should have happened at times that 
coincide so exactly with the times designated in the pro- 
phecies ? One or two of these we might account for on 
the ground of accident ; but that so many events of the na- 
ture just described, should have all happened at the periods 
in question, and in regular order — is a matter which car- 
ries on its very face the stamp of being connected with 
prophecy. 

If the sober and considerate portion of our religious com- 
munity can be persuaded to give some due attention to 
this subject, and to insist on the application of sound prin- 
ciples to all prophetic exegesis, an important end will be 
answered. If others more capable than myself, and who 
have more leisure, can be roused up to pursue the investi- 
gations which are here but imperfectly commenced, and 
to expose any errors, or confirm any truths, which have 
now been suggested, this little book will not have been 
written in vain. 



APPENDIX 



STRICTURES ON THE REV. G. DUFFIELD'S RECENT 
WORK ON THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. 

Since the publication of the first edition of my Hints on 
the Interpretation of Prophecy, a new work on the Millenni- 
um, or second Coming of Christ, by the Rev. George DufTield 
of Detroit, has made its appearance. It did not come into 
my hands, until the last sheets of the second edition of my 
work were under the press ; and therefore I could make no 
reference to it, either in my preface, or in the body of my 
work. It contains 334 pages 12mo, and is occupied with the 
exposition and defence of millennial views of a nature very 
different from, and in many respects entirely opposite to, 
those which are commended on p. 147 seq. above. Of course 
it became a matter of interest to me, to know what reasons 
could be given in defence of such views ; and it is surely a 
matter of some interest to the religious public to know, whe- 
ther these reasons may fairly be deemed satisfactory. 

I have read Mr. D's work with all the attention which 
time has permitted. The result is, a deeper conviction than 
ever of the difficulties which attend the supposition of & per- 
sonal, actual, and visible descent of Christ and the glorified 
saints to the earth ; and of their politico-ecclesiastical domin- 
ion here. The author is very much in earnest, in his defence 
of such a theory ; and he has read somewhat extensively the 
more recent works of those who have assayed to defend it. 
He has, however, advanced but little which is really new, and 
evidently depends, for most of his appeals to the Christian 
fathers and other writings of somewhat remote origin, on the 
extracts which he finds in some of his favourite authors. 

If the time which he has expended in such a pursuit, had 
been spent in the direct study of the original Scriptures, he 
would have shunned many au error which he has now com- 



154 



APPENDIX. 



mitted, and in all probability be would have greatly mollified 
the incongruities in his work, which now abound to such a 
degree, that any one, who reads him through carefully, finds 
himself at length much more prone to be surprised and as- 
tonished, than to become offended. 

It would be entirely out of place, for me here to examine 
in detail the various positions of his book. A review exten- 
ded to great length, or even a little volume, would be requir- 
ed in order to accomplish this. All which 1 can now do, or 
pretend to do, must be in accordance with the plan of the 
preceding pages, that is, to give a few hixts. 

It has not been my lot to have any considerable personal 
acquaintance with Mr. Duffield.* But I have always heard 
him spoken of, by my brethren in the ministry, as a man of 
a kind and gentle spirit, uniting the Christian and the gentle- 
man. It was matter of surprise to me, therefore, when I 
found him speaking of those who hesitate about devoting their 
time to the study of what they deem to be obscure prophecies, 
as "having reason to fear, that the charge and censure of the 
Saviour for hypocrisy may be applicable " to them, and inti- 
mating that " they are not in earnest about heavenly things," 
p. 23. He does not mean here to characterize mere scoffers 
at all divine truth, but he means such of his brethren as do 
not agree with him, in zeal for the study of what they deem 
prophecy too difficult for them to understand. Still, he must 
doubtless be aware, that many an honest and excellent min- 
ister actually entertains such an opinion, in respect to the 
difficulty in question ; and in many a case, too, the opinion 



* It was not until I had written nearly the whole of the remarks 
which follow, that I was advertised, through the medium of a 
friend, that the title of D. D. had been recently bestowed on the 
author of the book under review. I had every where designated 
him by the usual and familiar appellation, Mr. D. ; and as he has not 
given to himself, in the title-page of his book, the additional appel- 
lation of D. D., I have thought It best, in reviewing my remarks, to 
let the usual designation remain. I advert to this subject only to 
show Mr. D. and his friends, that it is no want of courtesy in me, 
which induces me to withhold his new title. As he has not made 
use of it in his book, I deemed it probable that he did not care to 
receive the proffered honor, and therefore would not wish to have 
others treat him as if he were jealous of his rights in this respect. 
The matter would not be worth adverting to, did I not wish to 
avoid even the appearance of treating Mr. D. with incivility. No- 
thing could be further from my intention. 



APPENDIX. 



155 



is well grounded, because the person who entertains it, has 
neither time nor means for pursuing the study requisite to 
gain the knowledge which Mr. D. insists upon. 

Again, on p. 71, he speaks of those " who neglect the 
study of the prophecies," as being "just as incredulous and 
unprepared to meet him [the Messiah] at his second com- 
ing in glory, to establish his kingdom on earth, as they [the 
Jews] were at his first " [coming] . Nay, " to the mass of 
Christian ministers and professors, the coming of Jesus Christ 
in glory . . . will continue to prove as great a stumbling-block 
as his coming in humiliation and sorrow, for suffering and 
death, did to the learned doctors of the Sanhedrim, and to 
the majority of the Jewish nation," p. 71. Again, on p. 265 
he says, that the churches of this country "seem to be asleep 
on this subject," [the personal coming and reign of Christ] ; 
and he represents the hope and expectation of converting the 
world by the usual means of grace, as "a fatal and danger- 
ous sentiment, and a false and unreasonable and unphiloso- 
phical [ ? ] hope." 

Throughout the work are here and there interspersed sen- 
timents of a similar nature. At one time the opponents of 
his views are negligent of the Scriptures ; at another, they 
are prejudiced, obstinate, bent upon peculiar hypotheses, and 
swayed by their own system ; then, again, they are unwilling 
to follow the simple principles of interpretation ; and they 
are indifferent about the glories of Christ and the saints. 
Moreover, some of them are led away by Platonic and other 
philosophy ; and others, (particularly the author of Hints on 
the Interpretation of Prophecy, pp. 395, 409), are led away 
by German neology. 

In respect to being misled by Platonism and German ne- 
ology, whoever may chance to be involved in this charge, may 
equitably, as I should imagine, make an appeal, after this first 
trial and sentence, to another tribunal than that of Mr. Drif- 
field. It is quite possible, however, as I can somewhat read- 
ily believe, that they may not deem the sentence, passed on 
them by him, to be of import so urgent and hazardous as to 
demand an appeal. Be this as it may, Mr. D. himself, at all 
adventures, whatever his other faults may be, will doubtless 
stand acquitted, in the judgment of every intelligent reader, 
and freed from any possible charge, of being led away 
either by Plato or by the Germans. 



156 



APPENDIX. 



It is enough merely to have hinted this topic. I pass to 
other considerations ; remarking only, that if Mr. D. expects 
"the mass of Christian ministers and professors" to give him 
the most kindly and patient hearing, (and truly he needs a 
hearing both kind and patient), it is not the wisest policy to 
bespeak that hearing, by blows somewhat rude and violent 
upon the very ears which are summoned to listen. 

His first essay, after some remarks on the duty of study- 
ing the prophecies, is to establish hermeneutical principles ; 
from the application of which he expects to deduce his 
whole theory in respect to times future. His grand position 
is, that all prophecy is to be literally interpreted. By literal he 
means, (as he avers, p. 34), "that system which assumes the 
literality, or historical reality, of the events predicted." More 
than sixty pages are occupied with illustrating and establish- 
ing this position. Often, in reading them, I have been con- 
strained to stoj) and inquire : Does the author mean really to 
assert, then, that all the language of prophecy is to be literal- 
ly interpreted ? Most of his remarks led me, against my will, 
to think that such must eventually be his position. More 
than once I began seriously to ask : And has it come to this, 
now, that we are to make a beginning with the very first of 
all the prophecies in the Bible, and find out by a literal inter- 
pretation what is the meaning of the prediction : " The seed 
of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head?" 

From this dilemma, however, after a long suspense, and 
not a little of doubt about the real meaning of the author, 
we are at length somewhat relieved, by two chapters on figu- 
rative, symbolical, and typical language. Here we are at last 
informed, that the prophecies must be interpreted by the or- 
dinary rules applicable to language of a similar nature as 
elsewhere employed. In the sequel (p. 106 seq.) he informs 
us, that the prophecies exhibit alphabetical, fropical, and sym- 
bolical language; and finally, in the way of appendix to this 
topic (p. 136) , we are told that " there is a fourth style of lan- 
guage . . . viz. that of Types." So far as the author goes 
correctly in the way of explaining any of these varieties in 
style, he produces nothing but what is to be found in the 
usual principles of hermeneutics. But it must be confessed, 
still, that he has here produced, in addition to these, some 
things which he may rightfully claim as his own. What 
sort of language the alphabetical is, in distinction from and 



APPENDIX. 



157 



contrasted with the other kinds named by him, I have not 
been able to make out by any thing which he has said. We 
may easily distinguish between language alphabetical and hie- 
rogtyphical ; but one would be put to serious difficulty, in 
proving that tropical lauguage is not alphabetical ; or that sym- 
bolical or typical language (to assume the author's nomencla- 
ture) is not alphabetical. In respect to these last two de- 
signations, however, we have another remark to make, which 
is, that types are not language, but things ; symbol is not lan- 
language, but thing. Passages which present us with types 
or symbols, are, for the most part, to be interpreted, (so far 
as the mere words are concerned) , in a literal way ; e. g. Ex. 
xii., which contains an account of the institution of the pass- 
over — which passover is a type of the death of Christ. Yet 
our author, while he says many things which are true and 
obvious, in respect to trope, and symbol, and type, has also 
presented many incongruities of representation, through fail- 
ure " to distinguish the things that differ." We may al- 
low a writer to speak of typical language and symbolical lan- 
guage, in case he tells us what he means thereby, on the 
ground that brevity may excuse a little inaccuracy in modes 
of expression. But a writer who makes so much to depend 
on the establishment of specific principles of interpretation, 
as Mr. D. does, or at least would seem to do, must be held 
to perspicuity and accuracy in the didactic parts of his book. 

About 150 pages of the work before us are occupied with 
discussion respecting these matters. According to my appre- 
hension, all that is said might have been more plainly and 
profitably comprised within the compass of twenty-five pages. 

But before we proceed to examine the main body of the 
work, a few remarks should be made on the statement of 
Mr. D.'s great fundamental principle, on which every thing 
in his book turns and depends, viz. that the prophecies are to be 
literally interpreted; and that by literal he means, that sys- 
tem of interpretation "which assumes the literality or 
historical reality of the events predicted," p. 34. 

Lest the word literality should startle his readers, he adds 
the epexegetical clause designed to be its exponent or equiv- 
alent, viz. historical reality. We will, for the moment, 
accept the explanation w 7 hich he gives, for the sake of inquir- 
ing into the accuracy of this fundamental position. 

A historic reality is something, or (as we may say) anything, 
14 



158 



APPENDIX, 



which takes place, or has an actual existence, in distinction 
from any thing which is merely supposed or imaginary. Now 
there are as many realities in the world of mind, as of mat- 
ter. Nay, if we include within the circle of the world of 
mind, the Divine Being and angelic intelligencies, we may 
well say, that there are more historic realities belonging to 
the world of mind, than to the world of matter ; there are 
more, and more important things, historical realities, connected 
with the invisible world, than with the visible one. How 
shall we show then, that when a spiritual exegesis (as the au- 
thor names it) is given to any particular passage of Scripture, 
that it does not as truly present us with a historical reality, as 
when we assign to it a meaning which has relation to exter- 
nal and visible occurrencies ? It is easy to produce a familiar 
and undeniable example. Jesus declared to Nicodemus, that 
"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of 
God." Now if the explanation which Mr. D. gives of his great 
principle is correct, we are not to give this a spiritual mean- 
ing, but a literal one. He cannot take refuge here in any 
thing which he says about tropes, or symbols. There must 
be a historical reality (in his sense of the phrase) in these words ; 
and this reality is one, according to the whole subsequent 
tenor of his book, which is of a visible and sensible nature. 
This is in reality a correct exposition and application of his 
principle ; and if so, and if (as is truly the case) this leads to 
absurdity, then there is not the weight of a grain of sand in 
what he brings forward to support the idea of a visible, ter- 
restrial, future kingdom of Christ. The simple question be- 
tween us and him is, not whether matter of fact or historical 
reality is designated by the prophecies, but whether the reality 
belongs to the world of matter or of mind. We say, to the lat- 
ter ; he says, to the former, if not exclusively, yet primarily 
and principally. Just the same question, be it remembered, 
comes up in respect to the words of Jesus to Nicodemus. 
The principle of Mr. D.'s interpretation, which he applies to 
prophecies, would make Nicodemus altogether in the right, 
nay a sagacious and straight-forward exegete, when he asked 
the question : " Can he enter a second time into his mother's 
womb and be born ?" How now, on the ground of a visible 
historic reality being necessarily implied, are we going to 
prove that this is not the natural, yea, the necessary meaning 
of the words of the Saviour ? We could not prove it. And 



APPENDIX. 



159 



yet we reject such an interpretation. Why ? First, because 
of the natural impossibility of the thing ; and secondly, be- 
cause of the utter incongruity of such a sentiment, for how- 
could a second and merely natural birth prepare a man for 
the kingdom of heaven ? Even Mr. D. is compelled to go 
along with us here, and yield assent to our reasons. But just 
the same difficulties as these lie in the way of assigning his- 
toric reality to the prophecies about the future coming and 
kingdom of Christ ; I mean, of course, historic reality in the 
sense in which Mr. D. employs this phrase, i. e. mundane, 
visible, palpable reality. It is impossible in the nature of 
things, that glorified bodies should dwell in and belong to a 
material world ; and it would be utterly incongruous with the 
state of perfection and glory that is promised to saints, to sup- 
pose that they are to come back from the presence and bea- 
tific vision of their God and Saviour, to a terrestrial, limited, 
and degraded condition ; for degraded it really is, in com- 
parison with their heavenly state. 

But Mr. D. does not appear, for a moment, to hesitate 
about these matters, for any such reasons as these. While 
he is frequent and occasionally somewhat vehement, in his 
charges of unfairness and want of candour upon those who 
differ from him as to millennial speculations, and seems to 
consider them as wilfully shutting their eyes against the light 
of truth, and as refusing to apply the plainest and most co- 
gent rules of interpretation, he himself still takes the very 
same liberties, in all parts of his system of religious belief 
which are not concerned with his great subject — the very 
same which he censures in them ; in other words, in spite of 
all his seemingly unbending system of interpretation, he 
bends every where, in case common sense bids him so to do, 
provided it does not interfere with his favorite views in re- 
spect to Christ's second coming. How convenient it is to 
see a mote in a brother's eye, while a beam is in our own, 
was long ago the subject of notice and animadversion ; and 
seldom indeed have we met with a case, in our reading, 
where this is more conspicuous than in the present. But of 
the topic thus incidentally brought to view, in these few last 
paragraphs, more in the sequel. 

Mr. D. has done nothing in reality to establish an intelligi- 
ble rule of hermeneutics, which w T ill essentially aid him in 
his main purpose ; for historical reality belongs just as much 



160 



APPENDIX. 



to the spiritual world, as it does to the material and visible 
world. And as a great portion of prophecy, beyond all rea- 
sonable question, has respect to the moral and spiritual con- 
cerns of men, so we may very rationally believe, that a great 
portion of it concerns the moral and spiritual world, rather 
than the terrestrial and visible one. All then is afloat, on 
the ground of Mr. D. We are compelled to leave the mat- 
ter just where it was when we began to consider it; for we 
have not acquired, by 150 pages of discussion, any new light, 
nor one single principle to which appeal can be made, with 
any success, for the establishment of his system. 

Come we next to the grand outlines of the system itself, 
which Mr. D. has exhibited and defended. He has under- 
taken to give these in chap. vi. p. 148. seq., and to present 
them in contrast with what he calls the system of the Spirit- 
ualists, i. e. of those who believe only in a moral or spiritual 
Millennium. Passing by several inadvertencies or incor- 
rectnesses in his statements respecting the views of the 
Spiritualists, and overlooking some seeming attempts secretly 
to ally them with the skeptics, who expect only such a gold- 
en age as the perfectability of man will usher in, we come 
at once to the very essence of Mr. D.'s literalism. We 
shall give, as briefly as may be, the leading features of it, as 
developed on p. 163 seq. ; and give them, so far as brevity will 
allow, in his own language. 

(1) The literal restoration of the Jews to their own land; 
which will be either introductory to, or in the midst of, con- 
vulsions and revolutions among the European and Asiatic 
nations. 

(2) An extensive conspiracy among antichristian nations, 
led on by some sovereignty, which shall be the Assyrian of 
Isaiah, the last form of Antichrist ; and this will lead to the 
great war of Gog and Magog as described by Ezekiel, and 
battle of Armageddon as set forth by John. All will issue 
in the destruction of the conspirators, p. 364. 

(3) During or previous to these movements, Christ will 
come personally and visibly in the air, accompanied by the 
souls of deceased saints ; the bodies of these will now be 
raised ; while other saints, then living on the earth, will be 
transformed and caught up to meet Christ in the air. 

(4) Dreadful judgments will next be inflicted on all the 
apostate nations, by means of volcanic and other forces ; pays- 



APPENDIX. 



161 



tic Babylon will in the sequel be destroyed, but not all the 
nations of the earth. 

(5) The saints, i. e. both those with raised bodies and those 
with transformed ones, will live, for a while, in the air with 
Christ, until he shall have executed his judgments upon the 
nations of the earth ; thus preparing the way for the national 
conversion of the Jews. 

(6) While his judgments are going on, the wickedness of 
the antichristian nations will come to the full ; so that he 
must needs now descend to execute his final vengeance on 
his enemies. 

(7) He will come down from the air, stand on the Mount 
of Olives, and utterly destroy the hosts of the wicked ; he 
will change the geological structure of Jerusalem and its vi- 
cinity by a terrible earthquake, and so transform the region 
as to make it fit for building there the metropolis of the re- 
generated world. 

(8) He will re-establish the Theocracy in Jerusalem, in 
more than its pristine glory; the temple will be rebuilt, and 
rites of worship be adapted to the dispensation, in which Jerusalem 
and the Jewish nation are to stand pre-eminent among the na- 
tions, p. 165. 

(9) After a series of years, all the wicked will be exter- 
minated on the face of the whole Roman [?] earth ; but there 
will be distant nations unexterrninated, on whom the Spirit 
will be poured out, so that nations will be born in a day, by 
means of the saints who reign at Jerusalem ; and thus the 
whole world will be brought into a peaceful and blessed sub- 
jection. 

(10) The risen and glorified saiuts, in the new metropolis, 
will be kings and priests for the administration of the politi- 
cal and religious interests of the [Jewish] nation. 

(11) With the new Theocracy will be connected a temple, 
built after the model drawn by Ezekiel ; and Jerusalem will 
become the nucleus and centre of all political and religious 
influences. 

(12) Christ, after his descent to the earth, in reality will not 
habitually dwell at Jerusalem, the metropolis of his worldly 
kingdom, but make his appearance there only occasionally, 
according to rites and at seasons appointed by him. His 
constant and habitual presence will be in the New Jerusalem, 
the citv which comes down from God out of heaven, where 

14* 



162 



APPENDIX. 



there is no temple, but Christ's presence constitutes its glory, 
and the delight of the risen saints. 

(13) The glorious politico-ecclesiastical dominion will last 
a thousand years, Satan being confined and restrained. 

(14) During this period, the earth will undergo a remark- 
able transformation, by great geological and atmospheric 
changes ; so that, although men in the flesh will still die, yet 
the period of youth will only be in bloom at the age of 100 
years. 

(15) At the end of the thousand years, Satan will be loosed, 
and all the ivicked will be raised from the dead. These will 
constitute the Gog and Magog of John, typified by those of 
Ezekiel ; and these, uniting with the devil and his angels, 
will make a violent assault upon the holy city, the heavenly 
Jerusalem. Divine justice will then interpose, and hurl them 
all to the bottomless pit. 

(16) The earth, thus freed from its enemies, will at last be 
transformed into a paradise of purity and glory, the everlast- 
ing abode of all the blessed, p. 166. 

In view of a theme so transporting, the author breaks out, 
at the close of this representation, into an extacy; which he 
also endeavours to communicate to his readers, by alternate 
and rapturous expressions of his feelings both in poetry and 
in prose, p. 167 seq. 

Such then is the substance of the millennial system — such 
the product of the conjoint wisdom and skill of its abettors ; 
as Mr. D. himself has told us, on p. 163. I have made the 
whole sketch in the author's own words, as I proposed to do, 
with the mere exception that I have sometimes abridged 
in order to compress the representation. The Italics too are 
mine, and not his. 

Besides the coup d? oeil of his views which he has given in 
p. 163 seq., there is another and briefer one in respect to 
several parts of the scheme, on pp. 366, 367. There is but 
little difference, however, between the two, which is of any 
special importance. From this remark we may except, per- 
haps, the fact, that in the first sketch, the risen and quick- 
ened saints in general are represented as " kings and priests 
for the administration of the political and religious interests" 
of the new realm (p. 165) ; while in the second, the collected 
Jews, it is said, will be the medium of reigning over all the 
earth, by Christ and his saints, p. 367. 



APPENDIX. 



163 



The unprejudiced and simple reader will probably inquire, 
with some amazement : What can be brought now, from the 
Scriptures, in support of such stupendous arrangements as 
these ? Who can satisfy us about occurrences, which would 
seem to lie beyond any region reached by the loftiest or the 
most vagarious flight that the imagination of man has ever 
taken, or can take ? On the subject introduced by these 
questions, something may be said in the sequel ; but I must 
beg leave, for a few moments, to conduct the reader in quite 
another direction, in order to follow out the track of the au- 
thor. 

Mr. D., if we understand his views aright, is not accus- 
tomed, when he meets an opponent on the subject of the 
apostolical succession of bishops, to attribute much weight to 
the authority or the opinion of the Christian Fathers. But 
here we have no less than 100 pages, almost exclusively oc- 
cupied with what he calls the Traditionary History of millen- 
nial opinions; see pp. 169 — 267. He denominates those 
Antimillenarians, who oppose his views of the coming and 
kingdom of Christ, and labours to show, that views like his 
own have been entertained not only from the early ages of 
the Christian church, but even from the times in which the 
Hebrew prophets lived and wrote. 

He commences the sketch which he has given of this sub- 
ject, by a hearty approbation of the remark of Tertullian, 
quoted and lauded by Faber, viz. that Whatever is first is true; 
whatever is later is adulterate. In connection with this he re 
minds us, that " it is certainly a reasonable presumption, that 
those who lived nearest the apostles, would be most likely to 
understand the general import of their teaching and charges 
and exhortations about the coming of Christ, and practically 
to adopt their principles of interpretation," p. 170. 

The Romish church, in their claims of hierarchy ; the 
English high-church advocates, in their claims respecting 
apostolical succession ; in short, every church, and all sects, 
that build on tradition rather than the word of God — all rea- 
son in the same way; and so far as mere principle is con- 
cerned, all reason with equal force and correctness. 

In what manner, now, if such a stand-point must be as- 
sumed, shall we get at the general opinions of the early ages ? 
We have a short epistle of Clement, in the first century, and 
a few fragments of writings besides, more or less of which 



164 



APPENDIX. 



are adulterated. In the second century we have Poly carp, 
Hernias (probably), Justin Martyr, Tertullian in part, Irenaeus, 
Athenagoras, and some fragments of others, either disputed, 
or mostly of little significance. Now what is the character 
of the exegesis in most, I might say, in all of these writings ? 
Much of it is such, confessedly, as would not stand a single 
hour's examination, by the test of fair and established herme- 
neutical principles. 1 could easily prove this, even ad nau- 
seam, if time and the patience of my readers allowed. But 
as to such as need proof, I may refer them to such histories 
of interpretation as are designated abundantly in Morus, in 
Ernesti, in Meyer, and indeed in the works of all recent au- 
thors who have undertaken to write the history of interpreta- 
tion. The early patristic exegesis is, even to a proverb, not 
only often extravagant and unsupported by solid principles, 
but sometimes even ridiculous. The Jesuit with his seven 
sermons on O ! the preacher who drew out the 82d particu- 
lar of resemblance between the horses in Pharaoh's chariot 
and the bride, i. e. the church, scarcely exceeded what may 
sometimes be found even in Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and 
Irenaeus himself. 

These simple facts, no man well-read in regard to this 
subject will venture to deny. What now shall we make of 
them ? That such exegesis is traditionary in the good sense 
of this word, and is derived from prophets and apostles ? 
Away forever with such a supposition ! " Quodcunque mihi 
narras sic — incredulus odi!" God's eternal and awful word 
must not be degraded by the conceits and dreamy visions and 
egregious puerilities of minds, either unenlightened, or enthu- 
siastic beyond the bounds of moderation, or fully and ear- 
nestly engaged in the pursuit of ignes fatui. 

Who does not know — at all events, who that has read the 
Fathers for himself does not know — that although sincere 
and ardent Christians, as most of them doubtless were, their 
minds, in many respects, were rude and uncultivated ? They 
emerged, at least most of the earlier ones, from the midst of 
heathenish darkness. They became, we will say, sincere and 
earnest Christians. But all the double-sense exegesis which 
they had been taught to apply to Homer, and Pindar, and 
others ; all the mysticism which they brought with them from 
the heathen schools — were insensibly carried along by them 
into the reading and expounding of the Scriptures. They 



APFENDIX. 



165 



designed no wrong, by their fanciful and extravagant exege- 
sis. They only gave what they deemed to be innocent play 
to their fancy and imagination. But in this play they indulge 
quite too often for us to follow them. Religion cannot — 
must not be degraded by puerilities, which make it contemp- 
tible to a man of cultivated mind and taste. And I am bold 
to assert, that from Clemens Romanus, down to a period later 
than the beginning of the third century, there is not a single 
patristical work, of any considerable extent, in which may 
not be found conceits and puerilities, that would make an in- 
telligent scholar of fourteen years of age in our Sabbath 
Schools, who has been well instructed, blush to be regarded 
as producing or indulging. 

Those advocates of tradition, who stand aghast at the great- 
ness and the sacredness of the works of the Fathers, will 
doubtless lift up their hands in token of astonishment, at the 
boldness, or rather (as they will name it) the presumption, or 
the heresy, of such a sentiment as this. Well — I shall en- 
deavor to bear it with some tolerable composure. I have 
heard the like of this in days that are past, until it has ceas- 
ed to be an object of any great .dread. But one thing I 
have to say — and I wish them to mark it well — let them be 
careful how they challenge the proof of my assertions. I 
have read with my own eyes. I judge, therefore, for my- 
self. I can prove to any reasonable man, what I affirm. 
And before I dismiss the subject of these strictures, I prom- 
ise them some specimens, of what I have here alluded to, in 
respect to traditionary stories and interpretations, which will 
enable them to judge for themselves, whether I have not pro- 
nounced a sober judgment in relation to this matter. 

Let us, for a moment, turn our attention to the condition 
of the early Christian readers of the Scriptures ; specially to 
those who were brought up as heathen. Who instructed 
them in the principles of interpretation ? The apostles, and 
other missionaries preached ; and the Spirit of God came 
down and converted multitudes. But conversion did not 
impart intellectual education. Their habits, their learning 
(what little they had), had been of a heathenish cast. Time, 
pains, right instruction, habitude of study, must all concur to 
form the rational exegete. Hence the early ages of Chris- 
tianity give us noble specimens indeed of temper, feeling, right 
and warm affections, benevolence, beneficence ; but as to the 



166 



APPENDIX. 



interpretation of difficult passages of Scripture, language can 
hardly describe how puerile much of it is. 

Still, I must say a word, to prevent any mistake here in 
respect to my opinion of the early fathers. Some of them 
were men of distinguished talents. In other ciicumstances 
of training and education, they would have shone conspicu- 
ously. They were, at least many of them, men of good faith ; 
credible witnesses of facts ; worthy of deference even as to 
opinions, when their superstitions and their visionary fancies 
were out of the question. Whoever despises them, or disre- 
gards their testimony as to simple matters of fact, shows him- 
self plainly to be a prejudiced or an unskilful judge. But as 
to their interpretations of prophecies which were dark, or dif- 
ficult to minds untrained in the Scriptures — they are most of 
them among the last to which we ought to think of appeal- 
ing. 

Having said thus much on the general principle in ques- 
tion, I shall pass over the whole of Mr. D.'s hundred pages of 
patristical traditions, with merely a few more suggestions. 

He first refers us to the Jewish Rabbies, and even to the 
Zend-Avesta, at a period antecedent to the Christian era. 
Next, John the Baptist, the Saviour, and the writers of the 
New Testament, are all made to contribute something to es- 
tablish his Millennium. Then come Clement, Ignatius, Po- 
ly carp, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tatian, Clement of 
Alexandria, and many others, some of which have not even 
left behind them any certain relics of their writings. All 
these are made by Mr. D. to give testimony in favour of his 
cause ; or, (which he seems to regard as being equally in his 
favour) , they do not give testimony against it. In this way 
he goes on until he comes down to a later age. Nor does 
he omit, even here, to trace out his traditionary history. But 
the fathers who were opposed to the millennial views in ques- 
tion — Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine, 
and indeed most of the other distinguished fathers — he slips 
over with slight notices, or with some little effort either to 
make them indirectly contribute to his purpose, or else to 
parry the force of their strokes, and diminish the value of 
their opinions. 

There is nothing — or almost nothing — which cannot be es- 
tablished from the Fathers, in such a way. There is scarce- 
ly any absurdity in exegesis or theology, which some of them 



APPENDIX. 



167 



have not uttered or patronized. It is the most convenient of 
all possible methods of arguing, to appeal to tradition ; for 
there is no sect, and no enthusiast, which may not find some 
prototype among the ancients. 

I have observed, specially of late years, in my reading, that 
those always seem to rely most heartily upon the Fathers, who 
feel themselves to be most deficient in the power of estab- 
lishing any thing directly from the Scriptures. So did not 
the first Protestants. The Scriptures are the sufficient 

AND ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE, is the basis of all 

true Protestantism. Whoever builds on any other basis, will 
find, sooner or later, that he has built upon the sand. 

Mr. D. gives us, with no very sparing hand, extracts from 
a number of the Fathers ; but he takes, for the most part, 
what he finds already selected for a purpose like his own, 
and leaves out what he would not wish to bring forward. 
Even in most of the passages cited by him, the evidence in 
favour of his scheme is rather of the constructive kind. Pa- 
pias, probably Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactanti- 
us, and a few others, were, no doubt, real Millenarians, in a 
sense somewhat resembling that in which Mr. D. is a Millen- 
arian. The same is true of a few others ; but they are most- 
ly obscure men. I respect many of them, because they were 
sincere. I cannot but respect the talents of such men in par- 
ticular as Tertullian and Irenaeus. A more impassioned soul 
of oratory than Tertullian exhibits, can scarely be found in 
the circles of any age or nation. His style is indeed rough 
and unpolished. His idiom, even barbarous. But sparks of 
celestial fire burst forth on every occasion where his feelings 
are excited ; and he breathes out the very soul of glowing 
eloquence. Irenaeus too was learned, for his time, sober for 
the most part, solid and judicious. Yet there were points 
in respect to which he became as it were a childish listener 
to fiction and conceit, and where, as we shall see by and by, 
the most incredible extravagancies were no obstacle to his 
faith. 

We have done with the Fathers, for the present. We 
come then, at last, after ranging through 266 pages, to the 
bible itself. In respect to this I readily concede, in ac- 
cordance with Tertullian, Faber, and Mr. D. (see p. 363), 
that whatever is first is true, i. e. that whatever was originally 
inserted and comprehended in the Scriptures, is true. In a 



168 



APPENDIX. 



qualified sense I also concede, that ivhatever is later, is adulte- 
rate, i. e. understanding this to mean, that whatever unin- 
spired men have added to the Scriptures, or made to assume 
the place of them, is spurious and of no binding authority. 
But how can any considerate man possibly concede, that all 
the views and interpretations of the Scriptures, which belong 
to the early Fathers, are true and unadulterate ? In sober 
earnest, it is impossible to believe this, without abandoning 
reason and common sense. It is impossible to do so, with- 
out degrading the Scriptures. Uninspired men are never in- 
fallible ; and the early Fathers belong most manifestly to this 
class. 

Let us go at once then to the Bible itself. Mr. D. opens 
his argument in favour of his scheme from this, by appealing 
to the much controverted passage in Acts 3 : 21, which 
speaks of " the heavens receiving Jesus Christ, until the times 
of the restitution of all things, ct/gi xqovow ctTioxonacnacrswg 
Tiaviwv" These times he assumes, as we might expect, to 
be the very times so largely set forth and insisted upon in 
his millennial theory. The heavens are to conceal the Sa- 
viour, and hide him from our fleshly vision, until the com- 
mencement of the Millennium ; and then they are to render 
him up, and he is to become visible again to the eyes of men 
on earth. " Here," Mr. D. says, " there can be no question- 
ing of facts by any one who admits as truth . . . the testi- 
mony of the apostle." A little farther on he remarks, that 
"it is of essential consequence, if possible, to enlist this text in 
favour of this [his] view." To his own satisfaction he has 
made this possible. Without adverting, now, to the various 
mistakes in criticism which the process of Mr. D.'s reasoning 
here developes, it is enough to say, that every thing depends, 
of course, on the meaning of %qovwv anoy.aiao-Tuuaxsv, ren- 
dered in our English version, times of restitution. This our 
author of course considers as declaring in favour of his views 
of restitution, i. e. in favour of the transformation of things 
in general at the commencement of the Millennium. The 
simple and literal meaning of anoy.aiaaxaGLC is restoration, 
i.e. the putting of any thing which has been injured, has de- 
cayed, or is worn out, into a renewed and good condition. 
It is undoubtedly true, that Peter might have employed this 
word, in case he had believed in the same Millennium which 
is advocated by Mr. D. ; but it is equally plain and true, that 



APPENDIX. 



if he had a moral and spiritual Millennium in view, he might 
appropriately employ it, just as the apostle (Rom. 12: 2. Tit. 
3 : 5) speaks of the renewing of our minds. When the Sa- 
viour speaks of spiritual regeneration, he calls it being born 
again. He does so, because language furnishes him with no 
more appropriate and significant means of indicating the na- 
ture and consequences of a change of heart. Nicodemus, 
however, could understand him only in the carnal and mate- 
rial sense ; and this I take to be exactly what Mr. D. has done 
with the words of Peter. The language of this apostle, after 
all, may be easily explained. In the first creation, God made 
all very good. Order and harmony held joint sway over all 
his dominions. Satan and sin, and sinning angels and men, 
have destroyed and disturbed this harmony and order. When 
the great period of man's probation and the process of re- 
deeming sinners shall be completed — when (as Paul says) 
the end cometh — then all will be restored. " A new heavens 
and a new earth" will arise, by the mighty power of God 
and the Redeemer, loherein will dwell righteousness, and right- 
eousness only. Nor does this at all involve the final and uni- 
versal salvation of all impenitent men, and of the devils also, 
any more than the restoration of order and peace throughout 
the domains of an earthly prince, after a great and dangerous 
rebellion, necessarily implies that all the rebels should be re- 
tained in his kingdom and pardoned, instead of their being 
sent into remote banishment and exile. Such plainly are the 
times of restitution to which Peter alludes. It would, in fact, 
be just as congruous to interpret being born again literally, as 
it would to apply the text in question to the terrestrial, " geo- 
logical and atmospherical transformations" to which Mr. D. 
applies it. I aver this in all sincerity and earnestness, be- 
cause, (as I shall attempt to show in the sequel) , the king- 
dom of Christ, and the restoration which he is to introduce, 
are essentially and fundamentally of a moral and spiritual na- 
ture. Of course, if this be true, such an exegesis as Mr. D. 
gives of the passage, is altogether incongruous and inappro- 
priate. 

In proof that Peter refers very properly to "the holy 
prophets" as predicting the restoration pleaded for, Mr. D. 
refers us (on p. 277) to nearly every one of them, for passages 
of the like tenor with that in Acts 3 : 21 ; that is, as he ex- 
pounds them. How easily are objects magnified or the colour 
15 



170 



APPENDIX, 



of them changed, when we look through a glass appropriate 
to produce these effects. If we can only forget that we are 
using a magnifying glass, or one which has a stain upon its 
surface, we may believe that we see every thing with our 
own proper eyes. And this is what Mr. D. has succeeded in 
completely doing, while inspecting the numerous texts which 
he has enlisted into his army. 

Having thus disclosed the fundamental principle of Mr. D.- 
by the aid of which he summons help to his cause from the 
Scriptures ; and having advertised the reader by what means 
all texts come to be shaped so as to suit his purpose ; 1 must 
content myself, for the rest, with merely giving, for the most 
part, a list to the reader of the passages on which he places 
his main reliance. 

These are Dan. 7 : 7, 8, 19—25. Matt. 24 : 50. 1 Thess.4: 
14 — 17. 5: 1 — 6. Here "the descent of the Lord from 
heaven, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump 
of God ; the resurrection of the dead, and Christians being 
caught up to meet the Lord in the air;" are all applied to 
the coming of Christ before the Millennium, i. e. at the com- 
mencement of it ; and so of all other remaining texts. In 
various ways he lays under contribution, 2 Thess. 2: 5 — 7. 
Rev. 19: 11—21. Is. 63: 1—6. Ezek. chap. 38. 39. Rev. 16: 
14—16. 14: 14—20. 1: 7. (The author every where quotes 
this book by a new title, viz. Revelations.) Zech. 12 : 9 — -12. 
Matt. 24 : 30. 26 : 64. Mark 13 : 26. 14 : 62. Luke 21: 24—27. 
1 Tim. 6: 14. 2 Tim. J : 10. 4 : 1, 8. Tit. 2 : 13. A few 
other passages are incidentally quoted ; but the main reli- 
ance is on these. 

Specially and at length does he argue the point, that 2 Thess. 
2 : 8, which speaks of the " man of sin being destroyed by the 
breath of the mouth and the brightness of the appearing of Christ" 
admits of no other than a strictly literal sense, p. 310 seq. 
For myself, after turning this matter round and round, in or- 
der to view it on every side, I have not been able to make out 
what the breath of the mouth, in a strictly literal sense, is, of a 
being which at most has only a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15: 44, 
comp. Phil. 3 : 21 ) ; for such must be the case in respect to the 
body of Jesus in the world of glory. Nor am I able to see how 
brightness (in the original, enicpavslcc) , in the strictly literal 
sense, can destroy either the man of sin, or any other man. 
It might put out their eyes, if carried to a certain extent ; but 



APPENDIX. 



171 



this would not be to destroy them. And as to this last word, 
destroy, if all the rest of the verse is strictly literal, of course 
this part of it is so. The consequence then is inevitable, that 
when Christ comes, the man of sin and his adherents are to 
be annihilated ; for nothing less than this can meet the full 
and literal import of the word avrdojast, destroy. 

Such are the Scripture-proofs. Next comes the effort by 
Mr. D. to remove the great stumbling-block to his system, 
viz. the day of judgment, and the coming of the Son of Man, when 
this day shall be ushered in. 

Matt. 25:31 — 46 stands apparently much in his way; 
more, as he thinks, than anything in the Scriptures. Hence 
32 pages (p. 336 — 367) are occupied with efforts to remove 
the obstacles which this presents. The sum of his results 
is as follows: (1) The nations in the flesh, and such only as 
have persecuted the Jews and the church (p. 364) , are to be 
gathered, judged, and destroyed ; and this judgment is to last 
through centuries, (p. 366) . (2) No resurrection of the wicked 
precedes this judgment, but only the resurrection of saints. 
(3) Christ, with the saints, who are his messengers, is to come 
literally, and the bodies of the latter being united to their souls, 
they are to be employed in arranging and governing the new 
terrestrial kingdom. 

Comment, on my part, upon this effort of Mr. D., (and it is 
his principal one), need be but short. (1) Christ himself 
says, that " he will come in his glory, with all his holy angels, 
when he is about to sit upon his throne of judgment, Matt. 
25 : 31. Mr. D. says that he will come with all his saints, 
thus making vyysloi (angels) to mean holy men or saints. 
(2) Christ says no morfe about the resurrection of the bodies 
of saints here, than he does about that of sinners. He says, 
in truth, nothing of either ; knowing, of course, that the mass 
of his hearers took the resurrection for granted. (3) Christ 
says, that all nations are to be gathered before him ; Mr. D., 
that ordy persecutors of Jews and Christians are to be judged, 
and these while in the flesh. (5) The separation of the two 
parties — sheep and goats — is affirmed by Christ to be com- 
plete, universal, and of eternal duration, vs. 32, 46 ; Mr. D. 
makes it the work of centuries, a long and difficult and grad- 
ual process, and finally extends it only to persecutors of Jews 
and Christians. 

Many other difficulties in the way of Mr. D.'s scheme here, 



172 



APPENDIX. 



it would be easy to suggest. But enough. He contradicts 
directly the assertions of the passage in Matthew respecting 
all nations ; he violates the idiom of the Greek by making 
angels into saints; lie foists into the account just so much, 
and no more, of the doctrine of the resurrection as suits his 
own purpose ; and he makes the process (and of course the 
punishment) a mere temporal and terrestrial matter. Besides 
all this, he continues the connection of the sheep and goats 
for centuries, after a final and eternal separation is asserted by 
Christ to be made. 

What shall we say now to such argumentation as this ? 
It would be difficult to find in any or all the adventurous 
works on the prophecies which have hitherto made their ap- 
pearance, any thing which exceeds this, either in boldness of 
assertion, or in unfounded and presumptuous criticism and 
philology. 

The remainder of the work is occupied with discussion 
respecting the seasons and the signs of Christ's coming. 

As to the latter ; all that is said in Scripture with respect 
to his coming in order to destroy Jerusalem, and coming to 
vindicate his church, etc., is applied by him, with little excep- 
tion, to the antemillennial coming of Christ, and applied in 
what he names the literal sense. On this method of constru- 
ing the Scriptures, no more need here be said ; after what 
has already been said in the preceding pages. 

As to the time of his coming, Mr. D. is not quite positive. 
Whoever wishes to see how singularly one can grope about, 
who does not distinctly know the whence or the whither of his 
course, may consult p. 386 seq. Mr. Miller, in the judgment 
of Mr. D., has not quite proved his point, respecting the com- 
ing in 1843, (p. 389) ; but somewhere between 1843 and 1847 
will be marked, according to our author, " by very clear and 
decided movements in God's providence," preparatory to the 
great epoch ; ib. The famous era of 1260 years he makes 
to have ended in 1792 (p. 406) ; yet the Millennium has not 
come. It seems therefore to be rather dependent on the 
great period of 2300 years (Dan. 8 : 14) ; and these he has ar- 
ranged in the most convenient manner possible. They may 
have commenced in the year B. C. 536, or 518, or 457, or 456, 
or 444, or 434 ; and of course they may end in A. D. 1764, 
1782, 1843, 1856, or 1868. So then, the g eat crisis, although 
not arrived, still draws nigh. Twenty-six years more, at most, 



APPENDIX. 



173 



and then we must all go up, at least once in a week (so Is* 
66: 23 decides), to worship in the antitype of Ezekiel's tem- 
ple at Jerusalem ! 

If any thing could be strange to the reader, in the way of 
exegetical development, after what we have already seen, 
one might think it passing strange, that after expending about 
150 pages to prove the necessity of interpreting the prophe- 
cies literally, Mr. D. should every where, without even the 
semblance of an apology or justification, convert all the day- 
periods of the prophets, so far as his purpose demands, into 
3/ear-periods. Where now, we are constrained to ask, is the 
strenuous zeal for literality? Not a trace of it seems to be 
left. The difficulty which doubters have about a day as 
meaning a year, is not even noticed, much less removed. 
How convenient such a power of metamorphosis ! From 
one stage or form of development to another the author moves 
on, now vehemently urging the absolute and indispensable ob- 
ligation to construe every expression literally, and then wink- 
ing every thing of this nature entirely out of sight, or trampling 
it under his feet. How convenient, too, to have the choice out 
of six different periods, as to the time when the august dra- 
ma in question is to commence ! The latest of these periods 
may come, perhaps, even during the life-time of our author, 
and he himself may see what he believes to be the salvation 
of God with his own eyes. But if not, then he will at least 
be out of the way of critics and commentators, who might 
be disposed to point their finger at some of his wanderings, 
or to remind the public of certain faux-pas made by him. 
He is, in this respect, somewhat more prudent and wary, 
than the men of April 3d, A. D. 1843. In respect to these, 
if I can be allowed for a moment to interfere, I would re- 
spectfully suggest, that in some way or other they have in all 
probability made a small mistake as to the exact day of the 
month when the grand catastrophe takes place, the first of 
April being evidently much more appropriate to their arrange- 
ments than any other day of the month. 

A short chapter closes the work, the object of which is, to 
prove to skeptics, that the events which the scheme of the 
author supposes will take place, are neither beyond the pow- 
er of God, nor even, in many respects, aside from the phy- 
siological constitution of the natural world. The sugges- 
tions in general which are made here, might, with some little 
15* 



174 



APPENDIX. 



modification and correction, be well and truly made in re- 
gard to the future changes in the natural creation, which the 
Scriptures in reality announce. Some of the particular 
changes, however, which Mr. D. expects, I cannot find to be 
predicted in the Bible, and verily believe that they are not 
to be found there by any fair process of interpretation. 

The reader will now call to mind, since I have come to 
the close of Mr. D.'s book, that I have left, without any spe- 
cial remarks hitherto, the main constituent parts of his 
scheme, as exhibited on p. 160 seq. above. I did so, because 
I deemed it better on the whole, to make what few remarks 
I have to make upon these constituent parts, after the close of 
a general survey of his book, than to interrupt that survey by 
any intermediate discussion. I must now request the reader, 
therefore, to turn back and reperuse the leading features of 
the scheme in question, as exhibited on the pages named 
above, or in the work itself, in order that he may be enabled 
more readily and accurately to judge of the remarks which I 
shall now subjoin. 

In a general point of view, there are several complaints 
which a reflecting man, who insists on some good degree of 
perspicuity and concinnity in theological and critical matters, 
may be disposed to make of Mr. D.'s statements. 

First, there is a want of explicitness in respect to vari- 
ous important things, important at least to satisfy the reader, 
in regard to the author's views and system. 

In No. 8 of the representation made above, it will be seen 
that Mr. D. assumes not only the restoration and literal re- 
turn of the Jews to Palestine, but the reestablishment of what 
he calls the theocracy there, the re-building of the temple after 
Ezekiel's model (chap. 40 — 48, comp. also No. 11 above), and 
the institution of "rites of worship adapted to the dispen- 
sation in which Jerusalem and the Jewish nation are to 
stand preeminent among the nations." Observe how guard- 
edly this is expressed. He does not speak out and say plain- 
ly, that the Levilical ritual of sacrifices, and offerings, and cer- 
emonies, is to be reinstated; because this would be neither 
more nor less than a point-blank contradiction of what the 
author of the epistle to the Hebrews has affirmed and taught 
at large. And yet a theocracy and rites of worship cannot fair- 
ly mean, in the idiom of theologians and critics, any thing 
less than this, although the hasty reader may not, perhaps, at 



APPENDIX. 



175 



iirst view discern it. But still, bold and uncompromising as 
the author usually is, in his assertions and theories, he likes 
not to appear flatly to contradict an Epistle, which is mainly 
occupied with taking down and removing that very building 
which Mr. D. covertly endeavors to rear up and adorn anew. 
In so many words, plain and unequivocal, the Old Testament 
repeatedly and in a great variety of ways, (I mean of course, 
when it is literally interpreted as Mr. D. would have it in other 
cases), declares the renewal of the Levitical lites, in connec- 
tion with the return of the Jews. Thus in Is. 66: 18 — 24, after 
a declaration that the Jews will be gathered to Jerusalem 
out of all nations, the context immediately adds : " I will 
take of them for priests and Levites, saith the Lord," v. 21. 
So in Ezekiel, chap. xxiv. and seq., all the special ordinances 
for the priests, people, princes, and strangers, are detailed ; 
all the land of Canaan is apportioned, all the ritual offerings 
and sacrifices are prescribed with the greatest minuteness ; 
and even the very measures of the city, temple, and posses- 
sions of the Levites, as also the names of the city-gates, and 
every thing of this nature, are all drawn out with exactness, 
like the diagram of a building or of a plot of ground ; so that 
any doubt as to what is to be the future arrangement of all 
these matters is out of the question on the literal ground of 
Mr. D. He cannot surely refuse to acknowledge this, after 
he has so frequently referred to this very sketch of Ezekiel, 
as exhibiting the plan of the future Jerusalem. 

Scores of passages might be cited from the Old Testament 
Scriptures, all of which are of the like tenor. The reader 
may justly complain, therefore, that Mr. D. has not explicitly 
developed the full measure of his convictions here ; or at 
least, has not honestly advertised his reader of the inevitable 
consequences of his scheme of interpretation. 

Again ; Mr. D. has told us (No. 12), that " Christ will not 
dwell habitually at the Jerusalem" re-built upon the site of 
the ancient metropolis of Judea, but "in the New Jerusalem 
which comes down from God out of heaven," and that he 
will visit the first Jerusalem here named only " according to 
rites and at seasons appointed by him," i. e. (as I must under- 
stand him) at the times of the usual fasts and feasts instituted 
after the example of the ancient theocracy. But he does not 
tell us, first, where, on this nether world, the New Jerusalem 
from heaven alights ; nor, secondly, does he tell us explicitly, 



176 



APPENDIX. 



who live there, besides Christ ; nor, thirdly, what sort of inter- 
course or relation subsists between the heavenly-derived city 
and the earthly one. In No. 10, he represents all the risen 
and glorified saints as " kings and priests in the new earthly 
city, by whom the political and religious interests" of the 
new kingdom are to be managed. On pp. 366, 367, he 
seems to tell us, that the collected and converted body of 
the Jews are to perform this work. This apparent discrep- 
ancy has already been adverted to above ; and I introduce it 
here, merely because it is a matter rather too important to his 
system, to be left in such a floating condition. If the saints 
are to be with Christ, who dwells habitually in the New Jeru- 
salem which is from heaven, how can they be at the same 
time living in the earthly Jerusalem, and governing the 
world there ? If all the saints are to govern, then who are to 
be with Christ in the heavenly Jerusalem ? If only the Jew- 
ish saints are to govern, then the Gentile ones, living in the 
heavenly city, will enjoy much greater privileges than the 
children of Abraham. One wishes to know, at least, in what 
light the author views this subject. But he wishes in vain, 
for all is floating, varying, and of course uncertain. 

The list of difficulties on the ground of imperfect and un- 
satisfactory development might be easily swelled so as to 
comprehend many more particulars. But I have aimed only 
at specimens. Let us proceed to another view of the repre- 
sentation which we have set out to examine. This is, 

Secondly, that there are many apparent rNCONSiSTEN- 
cies and iNcorsGRuiTrEs in the scheme of Mr. D., both theo- 
logical and critical. 

I shall not attempt to reduce the catalogue of them to any 
rigid order, nor to render it complete. To make it complete 
would indeed occupy more time and space than can now be 
spared. But the following things seem plainly to belong to 
the subject in question. 

(1) On p. 163, the first act in the great drama is the restora- 
tion of the Jews to their own land ; but on p. 366 seq., we 
have an account of "the saints raised" amid the scenes of de- 
struction that have been going on, as sent forth, after all this, 
to gather in and convert the Jews. If now it be said, that 
the expressions on p. 163 allow possibly of a consistency in 
this particular; yet, at all events, p. 163 seq. represents the 
Jews as restored before the judgment and extinction of the 



APPENDIX. 



177 



wicked nations and the resurrection of the saints, while p. 366 
represents the restoration of the Jews as after these events. 

(2) No. 2 informs us, that a great conspiracy among the 
antichristian nations will lead to the great war of Gog and 
Magog, and the battle of Armageddon ; but according to 
No. 15, Gog and Magog are only the wicked, who are raised 
from the dead after the close of the Millennium. I am aware, that 
the author has once intimated, that Ezekiel's Gog and Magog 
are only typical of those in the Apocalypse. But in other 
places, he has represented the new earthly capital and tem- 
ple as built after the model of Ezekiel, and spoken of the 
whole prophecy of Ezekiel as having a literal fulfilment. 
Now nothing can be plainer, than that the war in question, 
and the temple, and city, in John, are of the same significance, 
and copied after the same model, as those in Ezekiel. If so, 
then the things predicted in the one cannot precede the Mil- 
lennium, and those foretold in the other follow it 

(3) Whatever the author may say, to reconcile his scheme 
here on mere typological grounds, another thing is very clear, 
viz., Mr.D. represents the Gog and Magog spoken of by John 
in the Apocalypse, as consisting of only the wicked raised from 
the dead, (p. 166 and No. 15 above) ; while John himself rep- 
resents these same enemies as coming up from the four corners, 
i. e. the farthest extremities, of the earth, Rev. 20 : 8. And are 
there no wicked men, then, who are buried elsewhere than 
in these extremities, and who must be raised up, at the end 
of the world ? 

(4) In No. 3 we are told, that the saints with their resur- 
rection-bodies, and the saints caught up to meet the Lord in the 
air, will dwell in the airy region for a series of years unde- 
fined, while the process of exterminating antichristian nations 
is going on. In what part of the Scriptures is it revealed, 
that Christ dwells, or will dwell, in the air ? The Bible al- 
lots to Satan this place of residence, before his confinement 
during the Millennium, Eph. 2:2. 6: 12, where iv rolg inov- 
gavloig seems plainly to mean the aerial regions. The air is 
a new abode of Christ and the saints. 

(5) When Christ and his saints descend from the air upon 
mount Olivet, " to change the geological structure" of the re- 
gion and fit it for the new city (No. 7), and the earth is to 
" undergo great geological and atmospherical changes n (No. 
14), do Christ and his saints also undergo a new transforma- 



178 



APPENDIX. 



tion, in order to fit them for terrestrial abodes ? Or can such 
bodies as they have live equally well in heaven, or in the air 
above, or on the world below ? 

(6) There are some serious difficulties in respect to the na- 
tions to be destroyed at Christ's coming. At one time, it is 
the antichrist ian nations and mystic Babylon (pp. 164, 366) ; 
at another, those only who have persecuted Jews and Chris- 
tians (p. 366). Are not idolaters, then, of the heathen world, 
antichrislian ? Or if all are to be destroyed who are opposed 
to Christianity, who are the nations left, that are to be born in 
a day by means of the saints at Jerusalem ? No. 9. 

(7) One representation informs us, that all the wicked on 
the face of the whole Roman earth are to be exterminated 
after a series of years (p. 165) ; what part and how much of 
the earth will be Roman, at the beginning of the Millennium ? 

(8) The new temple at Jerusalem being 44 the nucleus and 
centre of all religious and political influences," and all the 
nations of the earth being united to it, (p. 165 and No. ]1), 
in what way are all the inhabitants of the earth, or "all flesh," 
to " go up from one new moon to another, and from one sab- 
bath to another," in order to worship there ? For so Is. 66 : 
23 assures us they will do, if interpreted by the rules of Mr. D. 

(9) Mr. D. has given us no clue, by which we can discover 
how long it will take to convert the nations, that are uncon- 
verted at the time when Christ and the saints descend; nor 
how much time will be occupied with destroying all the 
wicked living upon Roman ground ; but be this sooner or later, 
when it is achieved, what object in particular is to be gained, 
by the saints' dwelling any longer, either on the earth at large, 
or in the political metropolis ? Their work is done ; and 
why should their terrene residence be any longer protracted ? 

(JO) The Bible tells us, in many places, that all Christians 
will be made kings and priests to God ; if literally so, then 
who are to be the subjects, after all men are converted and 
become Christians ? When all are kings, who are to be ruled ? 

(11) What is the use of the offerings to be made at Jerusa- 
lem during the Millennium ? The apostle has told us, that 
Christ, by the offering of himself, has forever accomplished 
all which is to be or can be accomplished, by any offerings 
whatever. 

(12) The apostle Paul tells us also, that Christ has " broken 
down the middle wall of partition" between Jews and Gen- 



APPENDIX. 



179 



tiles, " making of twain owe ne*v man, Eph. 2 : 15 ;" what 
then is the design, object, or end, of keeping up a distinction 
between Jew and Gentile, through the millennial period ? 
Paul never separated the churches under his care into two 
parts ; why must there be a separation of Christians during 
the Millennium ? And what is the object in gathering all 
the Jews into Palestine ? 

(13) How are all the nations of the earth to make their of- 
ferings on feast-days, in one temple, or to be accommodated 
in one city ? 

(14) In 1 Thess. 4 : 17, we are told, that the saints who are 
alive on the earth, at the time of Christ's coming, " will be 
caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and so be ever with 
the Lord." This is not to be understood as designating the 
place of their abode, but of their meeting. Their abode will 
be in Paradise, where Christ is ; Luke 23 : 43. 2 Cor. 1*2 : 4. 
Yet Mr. D. tells us, in some places, that while the saints all 
descend and live in the new earthly Jerusalem, (in other 
places his representation is dubious), Christ "will habitually 
live " in the new heavenly Jerusalem, (No. 12) . How are 
these differences in opinion between Mr. D. and the apostle, 
to be reconciled ? 

(15) John tells us, that the new Jerusalem is to be 12,000 
furlongs in circumference, i. e. 375 miles square, and of the 
same height, (Rev. 21: 16) ; how many of the saints, (if in- 
deed they are to be at all with Christ here), can be furnished 
with suitable dwelling-places in such a limited city, dwelling- 
places accommodated to the bodies which they have under 
the new order of things ? And in respect to the height of the 
houses, viz. 375 miles, in what way is daily, hourly, mo- 
mently access from the streets to the uppermost apartments, 
and egress from the latter, to be accomplished? These are 
fair questions ; for, on Mr. D.'s ground, the literal construc- 
tion must be followed out; and this gives us material houses 
and apartments, and heights and distances reckoned by ac- 
tual measurements ; and, of course, the inhabitants must be 
of a quality adapted to their abodes. 

(16) On what grounds are we to satisfy ourselves of the 
habitual intercourse between glorified saints with spiritual 
bodies, (so the apostle, 1 Cor. 15: 44); and men in the flesh 
with material ones ? How are the glorified, immortal, incor- 
ruptible saints, to dwell in material cities and houses, and 



180 



APPENDIX. 



govern men in the flesh ? In what manner are they to preach 
to them, act with them, rule over them, and manage all po- 
litical as well as religious matters? 

(17) According to Mr. D., men will be only entering upon 
their youth when they are 100 years old, and of course very 
few will die during the Millennium ; but in respect to those 
saints who do die, what is to become of them ? Are they to 
go into the heavenly or the earthly Jerusalem ? Are they to 
be provided with resurrection-bodies, or are they to go away 
into a separate state, i. e. the heavenly world ? He has told 
us nothing about a resurrection of the bodies of saints, after 
the commencement of the millennial period; what then is to 
become of the bodies of such as actually die after that time ? 
And what of the bodies of all the saints who are living at the 
end of the world ? 

(18) In the final assault on the new earthly Jerusalem, by 
Gog and Magog, i. e. by the wicked raised from the dead, 
(leagued with evil spirits) , how is the war to be conducted 
by beings with spiritual bodies, (for resurrection-b'odies must 
be of such a nature), against material cities and men in the flesh ? 
Or against the New Jerusalem, if, as Mr. D. once intimates, 
that is to be the object of attack ? 

(19) John in Rev., and Ezekiel in chap. 38 and seq., have 
made the war of Gog and Magog to precede both the judg- 
ment day and the construction of the new heavenly Jerusa- 
lem ; Mr. D. has made the same war to follow them; w 7 hich 
is in the right ? 

(20) On pp. 166, 367, Mr. D. represents the earth as purged 
and redeemed, and " placed back again amidst the heavenly 
worlds" and made the final paradise of all the ransomed of 
the Lord. He says nothing of its dimensions being enlarged. 
How many then of the Redeemer's "countless throng" can 
dwell upon it ? What are we to suppose of their modes of 
living and acting, in such a narrow space ? And to what 
heavenly worlds is the earth to be like ? If the spiritual heaven 
where God dwells is meant, what need of a new heaven, when 
one is already provided ? If (as Mr. D.'s language implies) 
the starry worlds are meant, then we must of course assume, 
that the future and final world of the blessed is to be mate- 
rial. Yet Paul assumes, that "flesh and blood cannot inherit 
the kingdom of God " (1 Cor. 15: 50), for the evident reason 
that that kingdom is not material. 



APPENDIX. 



181 



(21) Mr. D. makes the phrase kingdom of God, almost with- 
out exception in the New Testament, to mean the visible 
and millennial reign of Christ on the earth before its final 
transformation, p. 162. He also makes the resurrection of the 
saints, and the only one which he has taught us to expect, to 
precede the Millennium. But he has omitted to urge 1 Cor. xv. 
in favour of his scheme — a passage which contains the most 
extended and graphic account of the resurrection of saints to 
be found in all the Bible ; an account, moreover, of their 
resurrection only. This looks very suspicious. What is the 
common reader to do with this chapter, on the ground of 
Mr. D. ? Not a word about the wicked here ; and of course, 
according to him, not a word about a resurrection at the end 
of the world. Yet Paul here asserts that it takes place at that pe- 
riod. But how now comes this matter about, in respect to the 
scheme of Mr. D. ? The question, as I apprehend it, may be easi- 
ly solved ; but I truly regret to be obliged to give any account 
of the matter, since I must seem to accuse Mr. D. of want of 
candor and fairness. Nothing can be plainer, than that two 
important parts of his system cannot be made to meet and 
coincide with Paul's view. Paul says, that " flesh and blood 
cannot inherit the kingdom of God." Of course Paul sup- 
poses that kingdom in which the saints will live after the 
resurrection, to be of a nature which is incompatible with the 
residence of material bodies. Yet Mr. D. makes the kingdom 
of God to be of such a nature, that unnumbered millions of 
men in the flesh dwell in it for a thousand years ; yea, what is 
more still, of such a nature that, for a long time, the wicked 
and the righteous dwell in it mixed together. Again ; Paul, 
as before remarked, puts the resurrection of saints at the end 
of the world, 1 Cor. 15: 24 ; but Mr. D., before the Millennium. 

The one half is not yet told — but enough. Such a tissue 
of incongruities and inconsistencies has rarely made its ap- 
pearance before the world, at any period since the days of 
Jacob Boehmen and Immanuel Swedenborg. How it is pos- 
sible for any sober and educated man, in possession of his 
reason, seriously to believe, and earnestly to defend such 
things as these, I confess myself unable to see. Mr. D. often 
— very often — complains of the want of faith in those who 
differ from him. I think no one of his opponents will prefer 
a complaint of this nature against him ; I mean, of course, 
a want of faith in the sense in which he would regard or de- 
16 



182 



APPENDIX. 



fine it. It is difficult to read Tertullian, without feeling that 
the strength of his faith (alias credulity) is one of the most 
conspicuous of all his qualities. But the agonizing throes of 
this virtue (if you will so name it) in him, even when wrought 
up to such a height as to force from him the famous Credo 
quia impossible est, is but a faint prototype of the faith of Mr. 
Duffield. 

I must not quit the repulsive task in which I have been en- 
gaged, without laying before the reader, in the briefest man- 
ner possible, some Hints in respect to the principles which 
must be adopted in the interpretation of the Scriptures, 
where they speak on subjects of such a nature as has now 
been under consideration. 

All language is formed by men primarily in reference to 
objects perceived by some of the senses. It is the mass of 
men who make and use language. The conceptions origi- 
nally conveyed by it, are therefore such as the mass of men 
can entertain. 

When men come, in process of time, to reflect and gene- 
ralize, and thus attain to abstract and mere intellectual con- 
ceptions, they seldom, if ever, invent terms wholly new to 
express them. For example ; understanding, comprehension, 
perception, idea, imagination, and terminology of the like char- 
acter in all languages, are employed as qualified or tropical 
words, when applied to the operations of the mind, all of them 
having originally a^meaning connected with views or feelings 
occasioned by objects of sense. 

So it is in respect to the invisible world, and all the beings 
and objects that belong to it, They are not objects of sense 
to us. When we attain to a knowledge of them, therefore, 
in any way, either by reflection or revelation, we are com- 
pelled, by the poverty of language, to speak of them in terms 
that belong to language introduced to designate our ideas of 
sensible objects. God is a spiritual and rational being. But 
we speak of him more humano, i. e. as if he were like ourselves, 
The Bible speaks of his face, and hands, and arms, and eyes, 
and ears, and mouth, and feet ; of his anger, and revenge, 
and hatred, and love, and pity, and repentance ; of his sword, 
and bow, and arrows, and quiver, and shield ; and so it seem- 
ingly attributes to him almost every thing that can be predi- 
cated of man. It even goes upon adventurous ground, as we 
should naturally think, at times, and speaks of his espousing 



APPENDIX. 



183 



the virgin, the daughter of Israel, of his being married to her ; 
and the Lamb too has a Bride, who comes to the wedding in 
splendid and glorious apparel. So it is, also, in respect to 
angels ; and so as to heaven, and hell. Angels are furnished 
with attributes analogous to human ones ; heaven is like an 
Eden, with its rivers, and trees, and palaces, and feasts ; hell 
is a lake of fire and brimstone, or a pit of perpetual darkness, 
or a gloomy prison house ; and so of all the objects of the in- 
visible world. 

All this, now, is not fancy or poetry. It comes not from 
the desire to employ trope and metaphor in the way of orna- 
ment or rhetoric. It comes from the necessities and the 
poverty of human language ; which was not originally formed 
in view of such objects. It is not therefore adapted literally 
to express them. 

What now would Mr. D., or any advocate of the visible 
and terrestrial kingdom of Christ think, should any reader of 
the Scriptures insist that all such language is to be literally 
interpreted ? They would at once pronounce him to be be- 
reaved of reason. Why ? Because spiritual objects of the 
eternal and unseen world cannot be the same as the mate- 
rial ones, from which language has taken its origin. Of 
course, a tropical use of words, at the foundation of which 
some analogy real or supposed lies, is the only use which 
can be supposed or sanctioned, in cases like these. 

So, in the next place, it is with objects in the spiritual, i. e. 
mental, moral, and intellectual world. For the most part our 
language is and must be tropical. Thus the spiritual change 
by which a sinner becomes a child of God, is spoken of as 
new birth, as a resurrection, as a new creation. None of these 
designations, of course, can be literally interpreted. If they 
should be, they would contradict each other, and contradict 
experience. Of course we interpret them in a tropical way. 
Yet this does not prove that they are not employed to desig- 
nate " historical facts" It is as much a matter of fact, and of 
history, in respect to a Christian, that he has been born again, 
as that he has been physically and naturally born. No one 
need to doubt here, nor to reason as Nicodemus did. 

Thus far we are on plain and beaten ground. Let us now 
advance a step further. 

All the prophecies respecting the appearance of the Mes- 
siah are invested with the costume of figurative language. 



184 



APPENDIX. 



The predominant characteristics in the Old Testament are, 
that he is to be a King, to reign over Israel, and subdue all na- 
tions ; to be surrounded by every object that will exhibit 
and render impressive his power and his magnificence; he 
is to sit on David's throne, and reign for ever and ever. 
Ps. ii, xlv, lxxii, cx, and a multitude of passages in Isa- 
iah and other prophets, all hold the Messiah up to view in 
such a light as this. 

What now did the Jews think and say, when he made his 
appearance among them in a lowly condition, as "a man of 
sorrows and acquainted with grief?" They thought it im- 
possible that he could be the Messiah. They said that he 
was an impostor. They despised, neglected, persecuted, cru- 
cified him, because he did not appear in the manner and 
condition which they believed were predicted by the pro- 
phets of their nation ; and they believed thus, because, like 
Mr. D., they interpreted the Scriptures literally. 

This, then, is the very same mistake, so far as interpretation 
is concerned, which Mr. D., and all who harmonize in opin- 
ion with him, are now committing. They must needs have a 
literal exegesis of all passages of Scripture which relate to 
the future kingdom of Christ. So said and thought the Jews. 
And because the Messiah made his claims only to a spbitual 
dominion, they would not receive him. And because Chris- 
tians in general believe in only a future spiiitual reign of 
Christ on earth, Mr. D. and others reject the views which 
they entertain, and treat them with disregard or even with 
contumely. Such is the parallel which is now fairly before us. 

A sober man, well versed in the language of Scripture, 
will easily perceive and acknowledge, that of necessity the 
ancient prophets spoke as they did of the future coming of 
Christ in the flesh, and of the kingdom which he was about 
to set up. Their representations must be borrowed, in or- 
der to be understood, from objects before the minds of their 
hearers or readers, with which they were familiar. All the 
mysteries of prophetic diction, if any there are, are easily un- 
folded by such considerations. The prophets took it for 
granted, that in speaking of a spiritual Redeemer, and of his 
kingdom, their language must be spiritually interpreted. 

Why now, in speaking of the advanced and more com- 
plete state of the same kingdom, should not the same pro- 
phets, or the New Testament writers, employ language in a 
similar way ? I can see, or feel, no rational objection. 



APFENDIX. 



185 



This brings us to our ultimate point. Is the kingdom of 
Christ essentially moral and spiritual? And must, therefore, 
all descriptions of it be interpreted in a manner that com- 
ports with this fundamental principle ? 

The kingdom of God is spiritual. So the Saviour has 
most explicitly declared : " The kingdom of God cometh not 
with observation ; neither shall they say, Lo here ! or lo 
there ! for behold, the kingdom of god is within you," Luke 
17: 20, 21. So says Paul: "The kingdom of God is not 
meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the 
Holy Ghost," Rom. 14: 17. So said Jesus to Pilate: "My 
kingdom is not of this world . . . my kingdom is not from 
hence," John 18 : 36. 

The whole tenor of the Bible declares this to be true. It 
lies on the very face of all its requisitions, commands, and 
promises ; on the face of the qualifications insisted on with 
respect to all who can belong to it. What must be done, 
that a man may enter it or belong to it ? He must undergo 
a spiritual change ? What must he do in order to remain 
faithful to his allegiance ? He must combat and conquer his 
spiritual enemies. What must one do in order to attain its 
highest rewards ? " Without holiness no man shall see the 
Lord;" and "the pure in heart shall see God." The battles 
of Christ's servants are "not with flesh and blood, but with 
principalities and powers, even wicked spirits in the aerial 
regions," Eph. 6: 12. Christ's coming to extend and com- 
plete his kingdom, is no more evidence that his kingdom is 
visible and an object of sense, than his coming to set up his 
kingdom at first, is an evidence that this kingdom was then 
visible. Christ himself assumed a visible appearance then, 
only that he might take on him our nature and die for sin, 
Heb. 2 : 9, 14. When he appears a second time, there is 
no necessity of assuming such a nature ; he will appear, i. e. 
he will give manifest tokens of his presence, only for the 
purpose of salvation — salvation spiritual, not temporal ; Heb. 
9 : 28. The characteristics demanded of his servants, their 
rewards, and the punishment of his enemies, all combine to 
show that his kingdom is spiritual. 

If then I am asked, why I give a spiritual exegesis to all those 
passages that respect his future reign on earth, my answer is, 
that I do it for a reason like that which leads me to explain 
ail the anthropopathic expressions concerning God and the 
16* 



186 



APPENDIX. 



future world in a spiritual manner, i. e. because any other 
exegesis would be utterly opposed to the well known and cer- 
tain nature and condition of the Messianic reign. The king- 
dom of God cometh not with observation ; it is spiritual, inter- 
nal, moral. The happiness for which it prepares men, is of 
this character ; and therefore the preparation itself must be 
congruous and appropriate. 

In fact, one might just as well appropriate and assign all 
our bodily qualities to spirits, as appropriate to Christ's king- 
dom the qualities of a temporal, earthly, visible kingdom. 

No principle which belongs to the science of herineneu- 
tics is better established than this, viz., that language is al- 
ways to be regarded as tropical, when, if literally interpreted, it 
would make a sense absurd, frigid, incongruous, or inconsistent 
with the context or nature of things. Now Mr. D.'s literal in- 
terpretation of many passages leads to some or all of this ; 
and therefore I cannot admit it. On the other hand, when 
these passages are interpreted analogically with other parts 
of the Bible which have respect to the Messianic develop- 
ment and work, nothing but consistent and rational views of 
Christ's kingdom are the result. I cannot hesitate which of 
these methods of interpretation I am to follow. 

The consequence of all this is, that I feel just as well sat- 
isfied, that the predictions respecting the future state and 
prosperity of Christ's kingdom are to be spiritually interpre- 
ted, as I do that the declarations of Scripture respecting the 
hands, feet, eyes, ears, mouth, etc., of the divine Being are to be 
spiritually interpreted. We must give to these latter declar- 
ations a sense, which will make them compatible with the 
well-known nature of spirits. And in just the same way, 
and for reasons equally cogent, we must interpret the expres- 
sions respecting Christ's future kingdom in a spiritual way. 
Our exegesis does not dispense with facts in such a case ; nay, 
it is built on facts that respect the nature of Christ's kingdom, 
and it presupposes facts in regard to it which 1 may w T ell say 
are more real and permanent and immutable, than any facts 
in respect to an earthly kingdom that is visible, palpable, and 
politico-ecclesiastical, possibly can be. 

Let us assume for a moment the other position, and see some 
of the consequences. Glorified saints, with spiritual bodies, will 
leave the heavens and come down to earth, mingle with saints 
and sinners in the flesh, partake of their occupations, and man- 



APPENDIX. 



187 



age their concerns. The Redeemer must quit, for a long time, 
the throne of glory in the heavens on which he is seated, to 
preside in and reign over a city or kingdom on earth. It is not 
possible to conceive of such a condition, either in respect to 
him or the saints, without feeling that it is a condition of ex- 
ile. In " the presence of God is fulness of joy, at his right 
hand are pleasures forevermore." There only " can we see 
and know, even as we are seen and known." Elsewhere all 
is mutable, perishable, and compaiatively unsatisfactory. The 
Bible gives us no intimation, that when the glorification of 
saints is once begun, it will be thus interrupted. Nor is 
there any object to be achieved by all this, which may not 
be equally well accomplished without it. According to Mr. 
D., a great portion of the nations unchristianized will suffer 
excision, at, or soon after, the coming of Christ. The work 
of converting the rest is to be speedily accomplished, when 
the Jews are gathered in — and what then remains still to be 
achieved ? 

The liter ality, moreover, which our author proposes for 
our guide, must of necessity introduce boundless confusion 
and darkness. Guided by this, we must decide, that David 
in propria persona will be raised up, and be the literal king, 
yea king forever, of the Jews ; see Ezek. 37 : 24, 25. Ano- 
ther sacred writer, if interpreted by the same rule, will oblige 
us to believe, that the king Messiah, after his coming, will in 
his own person make literal war ; that he will bring home to 
his palace many captive princesses; that he will wed one of 
these, and retain the others in his Harem ; and that his own 
literal progeny will be kings and princes in all the land ; for 
all this the 45th Psalm of necessity obliges us to believe, when 
interpreted in the literal way. In the millennial day, too, 
the wolf and the lamb will literally dwell together ; the leo- 
pard shall lie down with the kid ; the little child shall lead 
the calf, the young lion, and the fatling ; the cow and the 
bear shall feed together; the lion will eat straw like the ox; 
yea, the very hills shall break forth into singing, and the trees 
of the field shall clap their hands ; see Is. xi. and lv. 12. 

In my own view, Mr. D. has no right to refuse the literal 
exegesis of ail these passages; because, following his own 
example in other cases, we are fairly entitled (not to say ne- 
cessitated) so to explain them. Much less can he refuse the 
following consequences, (several of which, indeed, he has ex- 



188 



APPENDIX. 



pressly admitted and even insisted upon), viz., the rebuilding 
of a literal temple at Jerusalem ; the resumption of the an- 
cient ritual and priesthood ; the monthly and weekly flocking 
of all nations to worship there, Is. 66: 23 ; the universal sub- 
jugation of the Gentiles to the Jews as tributaries and servants, 
Is. 61: 6. 60: 5, 11, 12, 16. 49: 22, 23. 

But enough. What end now, we may well ask, is to be 
answered by all this? Paul has undertaken, more than once, 
to show that Gentiles are as really and as much the children 
of Abraham, as Jews ; Rom. iv. and Rom. 3 : 29, 30. Gal. 3: 
7 — 14. He tells us that "the wall of partition is broken 
down," Eph. 2: 14. Who then is to build it up ? Who is to 
show me, if I am a Christian, that I am not entitled, to every 
proper sense of this word, to as many privileges as any of the 
Jews ? Paul, John, Christ himself, the Old Testament also, 
speak of all the children of God as being made kings and 
priests, and being entitled to a crown of glory. If then all 
Christians are to be kings and priests, who are to be the ser- 
vants and underlings of the Jews ? The whole assumption, and 
all that is built upon it, is in direct opposition to the great first 
principles, to the fundamental and constitutional arrange- 
ments, of the Christian s} 7 stem. Yea, the assumption, in its 
very nature, is not merely wn-scriptural but cm/i-scriptural. 
It is in fact a real defamation of the free, glorious, and all 
pervading grace of the Gospel. 

Has any man ever yet made out even a tolerable account 
of the end to be subserved, by the reassembling of the Jews, 
and the reinstitution of the Mosaic ritual ? Sacrifices are no 
more needed; are no more acceptable. The time has come, 
when neither in Samaria, nor yet at Jerusalem, are men to 
worship God. He seeks other worshippers. But beyond this ; 
the Jewish nation now amount to considerably more than 
three millions of people. How are these to settle dow n and 
subsist in Palestine, with all their descendants ? Death is 
rarely to occur in the Millennium, according to Mr. D. The 
period of youth is in bloom at the age of 100 years. Then 
surely the Jew r s must double every 10 years (for they are a 
most prolific race) ; and in a single century they will at least 
number three thousand millions. Are these all to live w ithin 
the apportionments of Ezekiel as drawn out in chap, xlviii. ? 
Besides ; to what number are they to amount, provided they 
increase in the same ratio for 1,000 years? And where are 



APPENDIX. 



189 



they to live ? All the planets, and suns too, of ten solar sys- 
tems, would not hold them. On the very face of it, then, 
such a theory exhibits, enstamped upon it in high relief, the 
inscription of absurdity. 

Why does Paul, who has said so much about the restoration 
of the Jews in Rom. xi., say not a word about their literal re- 
turn ? Why does the Saviour, John, Peter, say nothing of 
this matter ? The obvious answer seems to be : Because they 
thought nothing of it, and believed nothing in it. It is all 
built on assumptions contrary to the very nature, soul, and 
spirit, of the gospel-dispensation, and subversive of the glo- 
rious freedom and equality of the sons of God. 

At all events, the exegesis that proves the literal return of 
the Jews and the earthly Messianic reign, must, if consistent, 
admit the literal David to be king, the Levitical priesthood and 
sacrifices to be renewed, and that all men must go up, even 
from the most distant parts of the earth, every Sabbath to Je- 
rusalem, for the purposes of worship. There is no stopping 
short of this, without entire and absolute inconsistency. And 
I will only add, that whatever proves too much — too much 
in such an immeasurable degree — proves nothing, abso- 
lutely NOTHING. 

Let any man of common sense, either educated or unedu- 
cated, open his Bible now, for a single moment, at Jer. xxxin. 
Here, beginning with v. 15, he finds the coming of the Mes- 
siah most clearly foretold. What follows ? That a son of 
David shall sit on the Jewish throne forever ; that priests and 
Levites shall offer burnt-offerings, and kindle meat-offerings, 
and do sacrifice forever. All this, too, is to take place with the 
most absolute certainty. " The covenant with day and night" 
shall be sooner broken, than this covenant, vs. 15 — 22. Here 
then, according to the scheme of interpretation before us, we 
must give a literal exegesis ; and of course we must find visi- 
ble and palpable historic facts in this representation. Christ, 
then, did not come, according to Paul, to abolish, but to re- 
form and complete, the ritual of Moses ! 

There is no avoidance of such a conclusion. The son of 
David, here, must of course be a son in the ordinary accepta- 
tion of that word; and priests and Levites and offerings and 
sacrifices must all be literally understood ; and all these must 
be eternal. I have only to add, then, that a man may as well 
ask me to trample under foot the epistle to the Hebrews, and 



190 



APPENDIX. 



with this a large portion of the New Testament also, as to 
ask me to believe in such a scheme of interpretation. No 
principles of hermeneutics can be sound, which make the 
Bible to contradict itself; none can be sound, which degrade 
the glorious liberty of the children of God under the Gospel, 
into a state which Paul most significantly names " a yoke of 
bondage" and again, "a bondage under the elements of the world" 
Gal. 5:2. 4:3. 

But it is time to withhold my hand, if I intend to preserve 
the character of Hi^ts, for this little work. And although it 
were easy to say things that would occupy as much space as 
Mr. D.'s treatise, I hope it is not necessary. At all events, 
it does not come within my present design. 

The reader must not for a moment suppose, that the lead- 
ing features of Mr. D.'s scheme are new, or the product of 
long continued and accurate investigation, on his part, of the 
Scriptures. They are far from this. Changes have been 
rung upon the same tocsin, ever since the close of the first 
century. Papias, whom Eusebius thinks to be somewhat 
shallow, seems to have been a pretty full believer in the visi- 
ble coming and kingdom of Christ. Then we have (probably) 
Justin Martyr; and, as I have before mentioned, near the 
close of the second century, Tertullian and Irenaeus. Lac- 
tantius wrote part of a book on the subject of the Millennium, 
at the beginning of the fourth century. Ever since that pe- 
riod, although sometimes there were long intervals, individu- 
als have made their appearance as advocates of the like sen- 
timents. In Germany and Switzerland, since the Reforma- 
tion, not a few writers of the same class have appeared ; but 
it seems to have been reserved for England to be the main 
field to produce such a crop. For some 30 or more years 
the number of such writers has been on the increase. Some 
of them have equalled, or perhaps even outdone, Mr. Duf- 
field himself. In our own country also, we have occasionally 
witnessed some phenomena of the same kind. David Austin 
at one time led the van ; and an impetuous and magniloquent 
leader he was. He was so full of the faith, as actually to 
build a store-house, upon the wharf at Newhaven, 250 feet 
long, for the service of the Jews, as a place of deposit when 
they should embark for Palestine. Fiually, however, Mr. 
Austin made quite a speculation out of the store-house, by 
selling it for Gentile use. Mr. Duffield has indeed, so far as I 



APPENDIX. 



191 



know, built no edifice of timber and clap-boards, like Mr. 
Austin ; but he has been long and busily engaged, in my 
humble opinion, in building castles in the air, more magnifi- 
cent, it must be confessed, and more imposing to the sight, 
than Mr. Austin's fantastic edifice, but destined, beyond all 
reasonable doubt, and at no very distant day, to something 
less honourable than even Gentile occupation. 

Sed — manum cohibendam. There is no end of the history 
of such efforts. Corrodi has drawn it out to four volumes ; 
and yet has told his story tersely and briefly too, in his Ge- 
schichte des Chiliasmus. The curious may easily, consult him, 
if they want further satisfaction. 

The reader will remember that I have promised him, more 
than once, some specimens of opinions, among the early ad- 
vocates of the visible and personal reign of Christ on earth, 
during the primitive ages of Christianity. He will also call 
to mind, that Mr. D. has occupied nearly 100 pages in giving 
us the traditionary history of the Millennium ; being desirous 
to persuade us, that the ancients, who lived nearer to the 
apostolic age than we, must better understand the meaning 
of the New Testament Scriptures. On this appeal to the 
Fathers I have already made some strictures, and do not in- 
tend here to resume the topic. My intention is merely to lay 
before the reader some delicate morsels of "traditionary histo- 
ry," which will enable him to judge for himself, whether 
what is early, is of course credible and authentic. 

I begin this exhibition with a simple reference to Lactan- 
tius, in the first quarter of the fourth century. In his Institu- 
tiones, Lib. VII. § 14 seq., he has exhibited his views at length. 
He draws from Hystaspis, from the Sybilline Oracles most 
copiously, and from the Apocalypse ; and thus he makes out, 
for future time, a paradisiacal state of the world, by interpret- 
ing the Scriptures now literally and then figuratively, and 
sometimes both ways in the same passage, just as suits his 
favorite object. He is rhetorical, and visionary, and very 
imaginative; but he still shuns many of the absurdities into 
which Mr. D. has fallen. 

Tertullian has given us only one short paragraph in Lib. 
III. advers. Marcionem, § 24. In this he tells us, that he had 
written a book Be Spe Fidelium, in which all his views about 
the Millennium were exhibited. But this is now lost. Still, 
in the paragraph above referred to he tells* us, that the resur- 



192 



APPENDIX. 



rection of the just is gradual, during the 1,000 years ; and that, 
at the end of the world, the present earth will be destroyed, 
and the saints be changed into angelic substance, and trans- 
ported to heaven. For one I deeply regret the loss of his mil- 
lennial book. It would be in itself an interesting, if not a 
complete, history of early opinions on this subject. 

As to Justin Martyr, even the text of the so-called millen- 
nial passage in him, and the only one, (Dial, cum Tryphone, 
p. 306 ed. Colon.), is not settled. The probability seems 
rather to be, that he was a Millennarian. But his views are 
no where giyen at large. What he has given, amounts to 
mere hints. 

Irenaeus is the store-house from which I shall select the 
material for the closing part of the entertainment, (I would 
hope that what I select will be for the instruction too), of my 
readers. At the close of his great work Contra Haereses, Lib. 
V. c. 33. §33 — 36 he has given us his arguments from Scrip- 
ture in support of a visible and terrestrial reign, the ingather- 
ing of the Jews, etc. Here, for the most part, so far as he 
quotes Scripture, he quotes the same passages which Mr. D. 
also produces, and interprets them in the same literal way. 
On these I need not dwell, since enough has already been 
said in relation to this subject. 

But there are one or two pieces of "traditionary history" 
presented by the venerable Irenaeus here, to which I am 
earnestly desirous of drawing the attention of my readers, and 
specially of all who may be in any way advocates for the tra- 
ditionary authority of the Fathers. I shall thus, by exhibiting 
these, redeem the pledge I have given, to furnish the reader 
with some specimens of patristical interpretation and tradi- 
tion. I ought, moreover, to produce these, in justice to myself, 
and in confirmation of my views respecting the conceits and 
superstitions of the Fathers. Mr. D. has indeed carefully sup- 
pressed the specimens which I am about to produce. The 
reader will, however, be at no loss in conjecturing the reason 
of the suppression. 

The invaluable relics in question are selected by Irenaeus, as 
he himself tells us, from the fourth book of Papias, an auditor 
of the apostle John, and a most diligent and eager collector 
and recorder of traditionary sayings. The book of Papias was 
entitled koyuov xvoiuzinv i^r/ioeig, i. e. Narratives of our 
Lord's Sayings. The book itself has perished ; but Eusebius 



APPENDIX. 



193 



and Irenaeus have preserved some relics ; and through the 
latter, I am enabled to present my readers with a portion of 
them. 

Papias says, that the specimens in question were gathered 
by him from persons who were auditors of the apostle John: 
and that John assured them, that he himself heard Jesus, 
when speaking of his future and visible kingdom on earth 
and its abundance and fruitfulness, make the following de- 
clarations : 

"A grain of wheat will [then] produce 10,000 heads ; and 
each head will yield 10,000 grains; and each grain will yield 
ten pounds of clear fine flour ; and other fruits will yield seeds 
and herbage in the same proportion. And all the animals, 
which subsist on the productions of the earth, will be peace- 
ful and harmonious, and obedient to man with the most en- 
tire subjection." Iren. V. c. 33. § 3. 

So much for the nutriment of those, who are to live in the 
new Eden which is hereafter to arise. But they will need 
drink, as well as food. Of this Papias, it will be seen, is by 
no means unmindful. The provision, according to him (Iren. 
c. 33. § 3), will be made in the following manner: 

" The days will come, in which vines will grow, each hav- 
ing 10,000 branches ; and on each branch, 10,000 clusters of 
grapes; and in each cluster, 10,000 grapes; and each grape, 
when pressed, will yield 25 metreiae {{i£ior t zai) of wine. And 
when any one of the saints shall take hold of a cluster of 
grapes, another [cluster] will cry out: I am a better cluster, 
take me, and on my account give thanks to the Lord." 

The 25 metreiae, which each grape is to yield, amount to 
about 209 gallons ; and the amount of the produce of a sin- 
gle grape vine, therefore, is something more than one hundred 
and eighty thousand billions of gallons. Here then is some- 
what ample provision for drink in the days of the temporal 
and visible reign of the Messiah. It would seem, indeed, 
that the promise to the disciples, that, at some future period, 
they should no more hunger, and no more thirst, is to be ful- 
filled with an amplitude that they never could have even 
dreamed of. One vine on each of the Continents, will make 
a reasonable supply at least, for all the inhabitants ; and the 
people of those days will need to give themselves very little 
trouble about carrying on agricultural labours. 

Alas ! however, for Temperance Societies, and specially for 
17 



194 



APPENDIX. 



Washington Temperance Societies, who inhibit all kinds of 
intoxicating drink! Their day will soon be over, when the 
Millennium of Papias and Irenaeus is come ; and this, as Mr. 
D. expects, is already near. 

But, trifling apart, (and in fact these are matters too grave 
to trifle with, when one can help it) , what are we now to say 
of " early traditionary history" respecting the visible kingdom 
of Christ? And what about the authority and correctness of 
those, who lived even very near to the time of Christ and 
the apostles ? Irenaeus produces the express declaration of 
Papias, that auditors of the apostle John assured him, that 
John himself had related to them declarations of the Saviour 
made in his (the apostle's) hearing — viz. the declarations that 
have been exhibited above. Here, then, I take my stand, 
and ask the advocates and defenders of traditionary and pa- 
iristical histories and legends, one and all, whether ive are in 
sober earnest to believe in such jpxdid fables as these, that would 
dishonour the brain of even the Babbies who assert, that 
when Adam was created, his head touched the north pole 
and his feet the south ? If not, then where is the tribunal 
before which these and all other tiaditions are to be tried 
and judged? It is only the rfvealed word of God. The 
Scriptures are the sufficient and only rule of faith 
and practice. 

Mr. D. will probably declare, that he has nothing to do 
with these extravagant and foolish conceits of Irenaeus and 
Papias. Doubtless he thinks it meet to reject these. But 
still I say : "Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur." He has 
broached conceits not a whit behind these fables in point of 
extravagance; he brings forward, and gravely and earnestly 
commends to the reception of the Christian public, fancies, 
extravagancies, puerilities, contradictions — and these in re- 
spect to subjects of the gravest nature too — even more im- 
probable and more revolting to the simple-hearted reader of 
the Scriptures, than the grain or the grape-stoiy of father 
Papias. 



END. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry- Township PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



